Now, here is a visualization I was working on towards the Christmas celebration – but I completed it about a week ago, so I’m now able to share it. It shows the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the birth of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. I was specifically interested in the topic because of the euphoria that characterizes modern-day Christmas festivities. A lot of it is just secular with zero reference to the Birthday Boy himself. This is my attempt to draw attention back to the reason for the season. There were numerous prophecies in the Old Testament pointing to the birth of this one individual and how they all come together in the mysteries surrounding the birth of Jesus. Now, if you are a student of biblical prophecies, you know there is a somewhat sub-genre called Messianic prophecies. I didn’t focus on Messianic prophecies as a full scope but only prophecies that deal with the birth of the Messiah.

The visualization is made up of a prominent Sankey chart and 3 bar charts beneath it.

Sankey Chart:

The Sankey chart features green nodes on the left and red nodes on the right. The green nodes represent prominent Prophets in the Old Testament who prophesied the birth of the Messiah. The size of each node is indicative of the number of times the said Prophet prophesied about Jesus’ birth. The red nodes represent the New Testament books in which these prophecies were fulfilled. Again, the sizes of the red nodes indicate the number of prophecies fulfilled in each New Testament book. The entire visualization is an interactive one; hence, you can especially check out the links between the green and red nodes to reveal more useful information. Once you hover your pointer over each green link, it reveals the following: the name of the Prophet, the exact Old Testament reference where the prophecy is recorded, the theme of the prophecy, the New Testament book in which it is fulfilled, and then the exact New Testament reference.

The bar charts

1. The green bar chart shows the number of prophecies each Prophet declared regarding the birth of the Messiah.
2. The blue bar chart shows the number of these prophecies that were recorded in the Old Testament books.
3. The red bar chart shows the number of these Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in New Testament books.

Follow this link to my Tableau Public account to check out the interactive version of the visualization:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/eli.sabblah/viz/MessiahBirthProphecies/MessaiahBirthProphecies

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. 

If there is anything I expect you to walk away with from this short series, it is the fact that no salvation story should be underrated or undermined. Salvation is God’s rescue mission. A rescue mission is still a rescue mission regardless of how long it took, how many boulders were lifted to get to the victim(s) or even what sacrifice had to take place for the victim(s) to be saved. This takes me all the way back to cross. 

I have heard world renowned atheists like Richard Dawkins belittle what happened at calvary and suggesting that the all-knowing God who created the heavens and the earth could have thought of a better way to save the world than to die on the cross. This will appear logical until we deeply interrogate what sin really is and its remedy. One would have expected the all-powerful God to just snap his finger and immediately zap away all that is wrong with the world and start a new one devoid of sin. Well God is not Thanos. This is the real world; we are not stuck in a Marvel comic either. 

First of all, sin is consequential both in the spiritual realm and the physical. I dare say it is more consequential spiritually than otherwise. The bible states categorically that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). This death is not a physical one, but a spiritual death which is characterised by a separation from God. In the New Testament, Jesus illustrates this same concept of spiritual death with an agricultural metaphor when he says in John 15:5 that, “I am the vine, ye are the branches … for without me you can do nothing”. When  a branch of a tree is broken off, it is dead because it is has been separated from its source of nourishment. This is what it means to be spiritually dead. 

Adam and Eve were instructed to refrain from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil because the consequences of doing so was death (Genesis 2:17). From the story, we can tell that they didn’t die a physical death when they disobeyed God, but a spiritual one which was characterised by separation from God and a spread of decay through generations of the human race. Hence, to deal with sin and its consequences with a physical approach and not deal with its spiritual roots is an exercise in futility. Take for example Jesus’ description of the Pharisees and their attitude towards righteousness. We see this clearly in his chastisement of the Pharisees in Matthew 23, popularly known as the “7 woes to the Scribes and Pharisees”. From verse 25 to 28, Jesus referred to the Pharisees as hypocrites because of their approach to righteousness. His chastisements are summarised as follows:

• Jesus accused them of cleaning the outside of cups and plates while there is greed and self-indulgence inside. 
• Jesus described them as whitewashed tombs that are clean on the outside but are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness
• Jesus accused them of outwardly appearing righteous to others but being filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness. 

This is how God sees the Pharisees who followed the very laws he had given to the Israelites. It goes to show that it takes a lot more than dressing the outside of a vessel for God to consider it clean. It takes a rebirth of your spirit, a transformation of the heart, for you to be truly saved. If you expect God to snap his finger for all of this to happen then you are expecting him to go against the laws he has made himself. 

This brings me to my second point: without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin (Hebrews 9:22). The debt we owed God while we dwelt in sin is not cancelled unless blood is shed. Hence, all the sacrifices in the Old Testament only serve as a foreshadow to the great sacrifice on calvary. To save us, God intended to do a thorough job. He didn’t set out to do a lazyman’s work of merely washing the outside of the vessels we possess. He intended to create in us a new spirit that is united with his Spirit. This is no joke. It had to take the shedding of precious divine blood. In Hebrews 10:10, we are told that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all. Which means, the sacrifice of Jesus doesn’t need to be repeated (contrary to what happened in the Old Testament when animals were sacrificed). Jesus’ sacrifice is good enough to deal with all our sins and for all time. This is the essence of God’s approach to saving humanity. He intended for Jesus to be sacrificed to fulfil the law regarding remission of sins and also to offer us salvation that is good enough to save all of humanity and at any point in human history after the cross. 

God’s rescue mission was not all pretty and flowery, but it was effective and that’s just what we should focus on. Christians the world over sing songs about the cross and speak flamboyantly about its essence to the body of Christ, however, the cross is basically a symbol of death. In our world today, it could be synonymous to an electric chair. When we sing songs of adoration for the cross, we are not praising it for the instrument of death that it is, but for the life that came out of that one cross on calvary. At the center of our salvation story is an instrument of death. From the perspective of our Saviour, I can boldly state that salvation can be messy but completely worth it. The agony of Christ on the road to calvary and the pain he felt while hanging on the cross should tell us that our salvation caused him a lot of pain and cost him his life. 

In Hebrews 12:2, we are told that Christ endured the pain of the cross and despised the shame because of the joy that was awaiting him. This affirms the fact that God’s rescue mission of the whole of mankind didn’t come on a sliver platter. However, the Saviour was not perturbed or discouraged by the enormity of the task at hand, neither did he abandon the mission because of the excruciating pain. Rather, he endured the pain and disregarded the shame that came with being executed like a sinner all because of the joy that was set before him. Perhaps, we should also concern ourselves more with the joy of salvation rather than the manner in which salvation comes to us. I know there is exceeding joy in being saved, but today I came to remind you that the road to salvation is not always pretty and maybe we need to appreciate salvation a little more because of this.

Consecration demands that you ‘desist from…’ and/or ‘indulge in…’ something. In the scriptures, God sometimes instructed his servants to either desist from things that were not necessarily sinful or to indulge in things that may appear to have no implications on holiness. Consecration goes beyond sinlessness. Instructions that God gives often form the basis of the individual’s consecration or what I have loosely called the ‘terms of their consecration’.

Let’s take for example the mighty judge, Samson. There was some mystery surrounding his birth indicating that he was going to be an extraordinary person. The Bible states that Samson’s parents had been without a child because his mother was barren. An angel appeared to Samson’s mother before his birth to instruct her to desist from eating anything unclean and drinking wine during the pregnancy. In Judges 13:14, the angel appeared a second time and met with Manoah, Samson’s father, and his wife to give an even stricter instruction. The angel instructed the woman not to eat or drink anything from the vine. The fact that she had to be instructed this way implies a few things, but here are 2 of them I noted:

1. Although it was a sin to eat anything unclean in Israel, it appears some people flouted this law, including pregnant women. Hence, Samson’s mother had to be warned strictly not to do it. 
2. It wasn’t a sin to eat anything produced by the vine or to drink wine in Israel, yet Samson’s mother was instructed to desist from indulging in these two activities. 

The angel gave these commands because of the special seed the woman was carrying. An uncommon seed requires an unusual pregnancy. This basically sums up the truth about consecration: anything set apart for God should be treated as special. 

Samson’s mother was not the only one given instructions to follow to ensure that Samson remained a consecrated individual to God. The angel told his mother that the boy would be a Nazarite to God from birth, which means that no razor should touch his head. Samson was expected to keep dreadlocks on his head not because getting a haircut was sinful but because Nazarites kept the locks of their hair to honour the covenant they had with God (Nazarite vow in Numbers 6:5). 

In our walk with God, he may instruct us to desist from doing certain things that are generally not sinful and instruct us to indulge in things that may appear to have no implications on holiness. These activities will form the basis of our consecration and distinguish us from all other men. It is important to note that we don’t become consecrated by following specific and personal instructions God gives to others. Doing this may help us in our general Christian walk or actually prove futile and even detrimental to us. This is why a personal relationship with God is essential in everything we do. Once we develop a close walk with God, he sets us apart from all other men by giving us personal instructions to follow: things to desist from and others to indulge in. 

Nobody should institutionalise the terms of their personal consecration as a doctrine in the church for others to practice. In establishing what is doctrinally good for the Christian walk, the bible recommends the word of God and the word of God alone. To this effect, Paul advises Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, correction, etc. Hence, nobody should expect what they deem as the terms of their personal consecration to become common Christian practice. Take, for example, a Pastor who has been instructed by God to desist from watching movies. Once this man of God heeds to this instruction, he is consecrated. However, if he makes it a doctrine in his church, it is very likely the entire church is slipping into sheer religiosity or legalism.  Or if Samson gathered men in Israel and forced them to take the Nazarite vow of never cutting their hair. These men would have never been as strong as Samson because the Nazarite vow he took was the terms of his personal consecration. Therefore, his power was not in the locks of his hair but in the obedience to the personal instructions God had given him. 

In Deuteronomy 14, the Lord makes a list of clean and unclean animals; clean animals being the ones that the Israelites were allowed to eat and the unclean ones being the ones they were to desist from eating. The list was made across various kinds of animals: 4-legged animals, birds, and fishes. I am not going to highlight the details of the lists but rather focus on a statement the LORD made twice in the same chapter (in verses 8 and 10). In the two verses, after God listed unclean animals he ended the instruction like this ‘…is unclean for you’. This statement implies that this instruction was not for everybody on earth but specifically for the children of Israel. People from other nations could very much eat ‘unclean’ animals and it wouldn’t necessarily be a sin in the eyes of God because he did not give them this same instruction. This statement affirms the point I have been making so far: certain things could be clean for everybody’s consumption but unclean for you. While reading Deuteronomy 14, I wondered why God expected his people to eat some animals and not others. The answer is in verse 21 when the LORD instructed his children not to eat any animal that had died naturally. He said, “for you are a people holy to the LORD your God”. As a consecrated group of people, the LORD expected the Israelites to eat specific animals, desist from eating others and abstain from eating animals that died naturally.

In Exodus 19, we see God issue some instructions to the children of Israel through Moses. The first of these can be found in verse 5:

Now, therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine;

Exodus 19:5 ESV

For the Israelites to become God’s treasured possession, set apart from all other tribes and nations of the earth, the LORD expected them to obey his voice and keep his covenant. This is similar to the instructions Paul gave Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:20-22 indicating that if anyone desires to become a vessel of honour in the master’s house, he must cleanse himself from that which is dishonourable.

To conclude, I would like to take us back to Exodus 19, to the story of the consecration of Israel before the LORD descended on Mount Sinai to deliver the law to Moses. In verses 10,14 and 15 the LORD gave the following instructions to the people through Moses:

• Wash your garments 
• Stay away from sex for 2 days
• Stay ready 

God expected them to wash their garments, desist from having sex and stay ready or remain in earnest anticipation of the meeting with him. The Israelites were expected to follow these instructions for 2 days before meeting with God on the third; God called it consecration.

Feature image: @frankfmx on IG

We certainly cannot talk about consecration without making a single reference to cleansing. Consecration involves the purification and cleansing of an individual, a group of people, artefacts etc. at the Lord’s command or request. The cleansing process could be a ritual or an actual washing of the person in question to make them fit for the Lord’s presence or an assignment. 

When we say an individual is being consecrated, we are saying the person is undergoing a purification process which will produce holiness. Holiness is a command therefore we must subject ourselves to the process that allows us to carry out this command. God commanded the Israelites through Moses in Leviticus 19:2 saying “you shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy”. Apostle Peter echoes this command in 1 Peter 1:16. Holiness connotes sacredness, uncommonness, and being set apart or distant from that which is mundane and profane. To be holy is to be like God in character, conduct and deed. It requires putting off the old nature and its demands and putting on the new man which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator (Colossians 3:10). Believers all over the world are undergoing this same process of being made perfect and holy. This is what consecration is all about. 

When it comes to cleansing during consecration, the bible often talks about it in two ways: physical cleanliness and cleanliness of the heart. There is an emphasis on the former in the old testament and an emphasis on the latter in the new. 

Physical cleanliness

In the anchor bible passage for this article, God commands Moses to consecrate the children of Israel in preparation for his meeting with them. The terms of this consecration required the Israelites to wash their garments (Exodus 19:10). This indicates the necessity of a clean appearance before the LORD which is similar to the purity laws outlined in the book of Leviticus. Therefore, the LORD’s command to the Israelites to wash their garments before meeting with him is very consistent with his character. He is holy hence anybody who wants to draw near him must cleanse themselves from filth. Without holiness, it is impossible to see God (Hebrews 12:14). When God manifests physically in a place, your physical appearance and the cleanliness of the environment are very crucial. This idea is evident in the verse below: 

“You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it. And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement. Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you. Deuteronomy 23:12-14

The above passage builds a bridge between the cleanliness of the environment and holiness. Prior to this command, it seems the Israelites eased themselves within their camp. This is an environmental problem that could have led to outbreaks of diseases and whatnot. However, the LORD addresses this problem as a spiritual one that has implications on the holiness of the people and his closeness to them. God says, because he walked in the midst of their camp to deliver them and give up their enemies before them, they must be holy. In this case, their environment must be clean. 

Wherever you intend to host God must be clean and devoid of filth. That includes physical locations like temples and prayer rooms. However, in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:19), we are told that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we are expected to keep the temple (our bodies) as sacred as possible and homely for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 

This leads me to the next point…

Cleanliness of the heart

God is very much concerned about the state of the human heart: how sinful it is or how hungry it is for righteousness. God who is Spirit outlined several purity and hygiene laws in the Old Testament because he walked in the camp of the Israelites and in some cases he manifested himself physically to them. In whatever space God chooses to appear, it is our responsibility to make that space clean and habitable for him. Be it a physical space or in the heart. 

God is concerned about purity at all levels and in all aspects of a person’s life. Be it in their thoughts, actions, appearance etc. God commands all of us to be holy as he is holy: without spot, without blemish. God wants us to be pure, without any impurities existing in us. In 2 Timothy 2:20-22, Paul makes an illustration that puts the responsibility of becoming an honourable vessel in the LORD’s house on the believer. He put it this way:

Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

There are many vessels in the master’s house; some are honourable, others are dishonourable. If anybody would put in the work to cleanse themselves from dishonourable activities, the master will set them apart as holy and use them for every good work. When the Apostle speaks about being cleansed from that which is dishonourable, he isn’t referring to physical appearance here. He is referring to sin and in some cases mundane activities. That which is common among men is usually unholy or unlike God. In the New Testament, appearing physically clean and honourable is good, however, being clean in your heart should be the top priority to us all. Jesus made this clear when he rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 in what is popularly known as “the 7 woes”. Between verses 25 and 28 Jesus rebukes the Scribes and Pharisees in this manner:

• Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence
• You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
• Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.
• So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

The Scribes and Pharisees appeared most righteous among all men. They put in a lot of work to appear clean (kindly read Matthew 23). They put a lot of effort into physically distinguishing themselves from the average person. But they paid very little attention to the cleanliness of their heart. There was greed, self-indulgence, hypocrisy, lawlessness and all manner of uncleanness in their heart but they focused on their appearance before men. They cared very little about their appearance before God. This was the reason why Jesus rebuked them sharply. There are lessons here for all of us: we need to put a lot more effort into cleansing ourselves from that which is dishonourable and indulge in that which is honourable. It is only then that we will become vessels set apart for honourable use. 

How do we cleanse ourselves from that which is dishonourable as New Testament believers? The answer is in what Jesus told the Pharisees: First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, so that the outside also may be clean. Although, physical cleanliness is important the priority should be the cleanliness of the heart. Once we start from the heart, it will be projected on the outside. The Scribes and Pharisees had it in reverse; they thought being physically clean would make them more acceptable to God.

To be consecrated is to be conformed to the image of God. Conformity is a proximity issue. You are more likely to conform to the image of the closest person to you. Therefore, in all our pursuits, we need to be deliberate about pursuing God and drawing close to him on a minute-to-minute basis. Jesus made a statement in Matthew 23:17 that captures this thought perfectly. He said the gold in the temple is made sacred because it is in the temple. Gold is valuable in and out of the temple. But gold is only regarded as sacred or holy when it is within the 4 walls of a temple. Where you are and who you are close to determines whether you will be successful at living a consecrated life or not. Choose to draw close to the Holy one and he will expose the uncleanness of your heart and grant you grace to cleanse yourself from that which is dishonourable.

Feature image: @frankfmx on IG

In the bible, consecration is revealed as the setting apart of an individual, an artifact, or anything at the LORD’s request or command. Setting apart means to separate something and make it special or distinct. It can also mean being distant or separated from the crowd. When God commands that a person be set apart for him, it means he has a special assignment for them. Therefore, he will require the individual to operate with a different mindset from that which is common among men and to be unique in values, conduct, and deeds. Not all men enjoy the privilege of receiving assignments from God hence the one who has been set apart for a specific assignment should know that he will journey on a road not common to the ordinary man. Anybody who is destined to journey on a road less traveled must be prepared to be different from the average person. 

The concept of “setting apart for special use” is present in the everyday life of the average person. For example, people often reserve nice, costly, or flamboyant clothes for special occasions. These clothes could hang in the wardrobe for days, months, or even years until there is a special occasion that befits the wearing of such clothes. This very much typifies how God sets people apart for special use. He first chooses them, then separates them from the lot and prepares them, often behind the scenes, to be used for special assignments. It is one of God’s observable ways of dealing with his children both in the Old and New Testaments of the bible as shown below:

In the first verse, God commands Moses to separate or set apart the entire tribe of Levi from among the people of Israel for the LORD. Before God made this statement, he instructed Moses to perform some purification rituals to cleanse the Levites. God, after he struck down the firstborns of the Egyptians, consecrated for himself all the firstborns of Israel. In effect, every firstborn Israelite belonged to the LORD. But on the occasion of commanding the consecration of the Levites, God replaced the firstborns of Israel with the tribe of Levi (v 18). The Levites, on this day, were set apart from their brethren, to belong to the LORD and to perform the special assignment of doing “the service for the people of Israel, at the tent of meeting…”. From that day forward, the Levites were tasked to take care of the tent of meeting and also to make atonement for the people of Israel that there may be no plague among them (v. 19). In this story we can see the theme of “setting apart for special use” clearly illustrated. 

In the second verse, we see Paul and Barnabas being set apart for a special assignment. According to the story, there was a group of Teachers and Prophets who were fasting and worshipping God in the church at Antioch. While doing this, the Holy Spirit instructed them to separate Paul and Barnabas for the work which he had called them to do. This is quite similar to the instruction given to Moses about the Levites. In this case, the special “ritual” that was done afterward was the laying of the brethren’s hands on Saul and Barnabas, after which they were sent off to go and execute the task the Lord intended for them to do. Right after this, they went to Cyprus to preach the word of God and perform miracles. 

In the anchor verse for this article (Exodus 19:23), we are made to understand that in consecration, boundaries are set around the consecrated thing and little or no access is given to it. I will explain. God scheduled a meeting with the children of Israel. As you would know, the characteristics of all physical meetings include the venue, date, time, and the individuals involved. In this case, the venue was the camp of Israel, the date was three days after the meeting was scheduled, and the attendees were God and the entire congregation of Israel. God, being the “chairperson” of this meeting told Moses that he would “…come down on Mount Sinai”. This means that during this meeting, God would be “seated” or “stationed” on Mount Sinai. God is holy, hence, anywhere he dwells must be treated as such. “Anywhere” here includes the hearts of men. He gave Moses clear instructions as to how his “seat”, Mount Sinai, should be treated during the meeting. God expected his “seat” to be consecrated and the attendees of the meeting to be consecrated as well. He commanded Moses to consecrate the children of Israel for two days by washing their garments (v 10) and by staying away from sex (v.15). About the mountain, he said in Exodus 19:12:

And you shall set limits for the people all around, saying, ‘Take care not to go up into the mountain or touch the edge of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death.

One interesting fact about this instruction is that even animals would be put to death if they touched the mountain. Having direct access to the mountain was such a grievous act that the person or animal that did it would not be touched but stoned to death. 

In verses 21 and 22, the LORD elaborates on this instruction by telling Moses to warn the people not to penetrate the limits Moses had set around the mountain. He also instructed the priests to consecrate themselves before they came near the mountain lest the LORD breaks out against them. In this passage, we understand that the mountain had been consecrated unto the LORD therefore he permitted little or no access to it. Why? Because he was going to be stationed on Mount Sinai. It is very important that as a consecrated individual you set boundaries around you. Not everybody should have access to you nor should you be influenced by any thought, philosophy, idea, or way of life. You must learn to set boundaries around you. Imagine how Samson’s life would have turned out if he had a strong principle against going near Philistine women or allowing them to have access to him. Who or what has access to you is very important in your consecration. The following are a few thoughts I noted down on this sub-theme:

• Access is very important in consecration. The level of access that people have to you and the level of influence and control material things and worldly ideas have over you has a bearing on how well you will keep the terms of your consecration. 
• There must be a cap on who and what has access to you when you are consecrated. Everybody should not have access to your time and everything shouldn’t have your attention. Especially when it comes to people or things that can have a negative influence on your life. 
• You must set boundaries all around you for this purpose. Implement strict measures to keep things out and be intentional about who and what gets in. 
• Boundaries are set to keep things within a specific area and/or to keep things from entering that area. Setting boundaries around you as a consecrated person means you are consciously taking steps to prevent yourself from indulging in unholy activities and from overindulging in the mundane. It also signifies that you will be content to indulge in that which God has sanctioned for you personally.
• Your heart could morph into a wild beast if not put on a leash. For the sake of the occupant of your heart, learn to set boundaries around his place of abode. Be strict about it and don’t compromise your standards. 

In conclusion, as a person who is undergoing consecration, you must learn to keep the terms of your consecration. Carry yourself with dignity and respect. Just as Moses treated Mount Sinai, do the same with yourself. For the Holy Spirit of God is domiciled in you (1 Corinthians 3:16). Walk in this consciousness and do not indulge in unholy things and overindulge in the mundane. Set boundaries all around you. Not everybody is supposed to have access to you nor are you supposed to be influenced by any and every person. You are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, act like it.

Feature image: @frankfmx on IG

The simple dictionary definition of consecration is “the action of making or declaring something, typically a church, sacred”. To declare something sacred is to enshrine it as a hallowed thing. Anything sacred isn’t common or ordinary. A sacred temple isn’t a place you can walk into without obtaining permission and/or observing the proper protocols. All throughout scripture, we see God command his children to consecrate themselves or consecrate certain things to him. These are always people or things that he claims ownership of. They belong to the supreme being of the whole universe therefore they cannot be ordinary or like every other created thing. 

The theme of consecration can be broken down into so many sub-themes that come together to give a good picture and understanding of what the concept truly means. In this series, I am going to explain these sub-themes and how we can apply them to our lives. The first sub-theme of consecration to be discussed borders on being chosen by God from the lot. To be consecrated is to be chosen. This idea is evident in both the Old and the New Testaments as shown below:

From both verses, we see God selecting a certain group of people among the lot. It is very important that we realize that consecration is initiated at the command of God. No man out of his own volition can consecrate himself or declare himself sacred to God without God giving him express instructions as to how to go about it. In the words of Jesus, “you did not choose me, but I chose you…”. In the scriptures, we see two kinds of consecration. I have loosely termed them as Group Consecration and Individual Consecration.

Group Consecration

There are special groups of people that God consecrated to himself in both the Old and the New Testaments of the bible. In the Old Testament, we see God ask Moses to consecrate firstborns, the priests, the Levites and in some cases the entire congregation of Israel. Sometimes it is a lifelong commitment, other times it is momentary for a specific activity or event (Numbers 6:5). Take for example the consecration of the Levite tribe of Israel, God told Moses specifically to “take the Levites from among the Israelites and ceremonially cleanse them” (Numbers 8:5). Prior to this, God had consecrated to himself all firstborns of Israel. He did this on the day that he struck the firstborns of Egypt in the last plague. But later on, he consecrated the Levites to himself as a replacement for the firstborns of Israel. 

The nation of Israel was consecrated to God among all the nations of the earth as well. God consecrates groups of people. He claims ownership of them by choosing them from among the lot.

In the New Testament, we see groups of people being consecrated to God as well. The apostles were chosen by Jesus and he affirmed this in John 15:16 (posted above). Salvation is a form of consecration as well. On this side of the cross, I believe that salvation is the first experience of consecration that anybody can have. Jesus said in John 6:44, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day”. No one becomes a Christian unless God draws the person. The entire family of believers around the globe has been specially handpicked by God to be conformed to the image of his dear son. 

Individual consecration

All throughout scripture, God works with and through individuals. He chooses them among a great number of people and uses them to achieve some amazing feats. We will take a look at two such individuals who were chosen even before their birth.

• The first personality we will talk about in this write-up is Samson. Samson’s parents, before his birth, had no child; his mother was barren before his birth. The angel of the LORD appeared to them on two occasions to inform them about the child they were about to have and his assignment on this earth. This is recorded in Judges 13:5, “for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines”. The terms of the Nazirite vow are recorded in detail in Numbers 6:5. It is a vow taken by some individuals who are consecrated to God. Outwardly, one of the major characteristics of such individuals is the locks of their hair: Nazirites do not cut their hair. 

• The second bible personality to be discussed is Jeremiah. Similar to Samson’s story, Jeremiah was also chosen by God even before his birth. I intentionally highlighted this fact to emphasize this point, in consecration, God often chooses men who have done nothing to deserve being chosen by him. That is why it is important we understand this through the stories of people God chose before they were born. In Jeremiah 1:5, it says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations”. In the world, people are appointed based on merits: educational qualification, experience etc. But when it comes to God, he chooses his servants in the womb and appoints them for specific assignments. Jeremiah lived the rest of his life as a Prophet to the nations to fulfill this word.

To be consecrated, you are chosen first among the lot, set apart, then told what to do and/or what to desist from. You don’t ‘do’ to become, you are first chosen before you can act on the terms of your specific consecration. You will see that the terms of the consecration of different groups and individuals in scripture are not the same. Compare the consecration of the priests to that of the Nazirites, they are completely different. That is why it is always important to walk closely with God and find out what he expects you, as a believer, to do or desist from to fulfill the terms of your consecration. We have been chosen by God as consecrated individuals, appointed to perform specific tasks on this earth. We must endeavor to fulfill our part of this gracious experience by following the instructions given to us by God, and he will also honor his part.

Feature image by @frankfmx on IG

However, ‘women in ministry’ has always been a controversial subject that has divided the body of Christ to an extent. There are denominations that believe women are not allowed to stand in the pulpit to instruct men publicly. Others see no problem with that. I don’t seek to merely take sides (although my opening paragraph gives my position away). What I seek to do with this write-up is to point out what God’s word says on the matter and I hope I do just that and not let my personal opinions and preferences cloud my judgment.

First of all, this problem arose from the misinterpretation of some portions of the New Testament – specifically the writings of Paul. In two separate passages found in two of his epistles, Paul admonishes the recipients of his letter to make sure the women in the church keep quiet and learn in submission. These two passages can be found in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. Due to the instructions, Paul gave in these two passages, some believe that it isn’t scripturally correct for a woman to pastor a church. Before I proceed, I’d like to clarify a few things. The controversy is not necessarily about the prohibition of women from sharing the gospel with people – as that would have been an outright contradiction of the great commission Jesus gave to believers. I believe what is in contention here is whether women should be allowed to pastor a church thereby instructing men in scripture and exercising authority over them.

I will start with the easier of the two texts, 1^st Corinthians 14:33-36. In this passage, Paul states emphatically that women are not permitted to speak in church and that if they would want to learn anything they should ask their husbands at home. The second part of this instruction gives us a hint of the context of the events Paul was addressing. However, this isn’t clear to all so we would still have to delve deeper into the issue. So Paul prohibits women from speaking in church. How can we convince people that the gospel of grace is one built on the foundation of love if there is a verse that seeks to suggest that women as a sexually-defined group of people are not allowed to speak in the church simply because they are women? It is hard to reconcile this notion with the ethos of the New Testament. We don’t need to go far, let’s stay in the book of 1^st Corinthians. In the 11^th chapter of the same book, Paul admonishes women to pray and prophesy with their heads covered. Throughout the book of 1^st Corinthians, we see the apostle speak elaborately on the gifts of the spirit and how they should be administered in the church. The gift of prophecy being one of the most prominent of all the gifts was duly addressed by Paul. He stated that when one person is prophesying, there should be total silence in the church. Since it is already an established fact that women can prophesy in church just like their male counterparts, doesn’t this tell us that they are at liberty to speak in church?

Indeed women are permitted to speak in the church to the hearing of everyone. This doesn’t in any way render Paul’s instructions for women to keep quiet in the church void. What we should be asking ourselves is, what kind of ‘quiet’ was the apostle referring to? Analyzing the text soundly would reveal that the apostle gave the instructions amongst several other instructions that would promote orderliness in church. Hence it is safe to say that he instructed women to be quiet in the instance when their talking was distracting the flow of the church service. It is believed that during service some of the women were fond of asking their husbands questions, seeking further clarifications of what was being taught. Hence the apostle’s instruction that they should ask their husbands at home if they didn’t understand what was being taught. The same Paul who said women should prophesy with their heads covered couldn’t have said in the same book that they are not permitted to prophesy (or speak publicly) in the church. In his essay on ‘Women in Ministry’, Adoniram Judson states that ‘So it seems, at least, for this word “prophesy” in the New Testament “signifies not merely to foretell future events, but to communicate religious truth in general under a Divine inspiration” (vide Hackett on “Acts”, p.49)’. This tells us that women are very much allowed to instruct men in scripture – I will delve into this a little more later on.

The second passage that causes confusion about women in ministry is in 1^st Timothy 2. This is a far more difficult text because it introduces some historical events as the basis of the instructions given by the apostle. Here again, Paul instructs that women should not be allowed to teach nor usurp authority over men. Let’s look at the context in which he makes this statement. So Timothy was head of the church in Ephesus that is why this letter was being addressed to him. If you know anything about the ancient city of Ephesus, you would know that it was a city that was wholly given to idolatry. Specifically the worship of the goddess Artemis. The temple of Artemis was one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world. It is an edifice that took 120 years to build. The temple was supported by 127 columns, each being 65 feet high (roughly 7 stories). Inside the building stood the huge multiple-breasted statue of the goddess. The servants (temple functionaries) of Artemis were mostly women. The men who were allowed to serve in the temple had to be castrated first – basically stripped of their manhood. This gives a bit of a background to the text under consideration. Some of these women had been converted and brought into the church. They were exposed to a system of worship where women exercised undue authority over men. It is believed that it was this particular problem that the apostle sought to address when he said I do not permit a woman to exercise authority over a man. It is worthy of note however that the apostle began this particular passage by stating that ‘let the women LEARN in silence and with all subjection’ (v11). This indicates that he wasn’t against female education and that is very important to this topic. It may appear trivial to us today but we need to understand that in those days women were not allowed to study the word of God. Kenneth Bailey mentions that:

Judith Hauptmann, in her essay on “Images of Women in the Talmud,” notes Rabbi Eliezer’s view that it is better to burn the words of the Torah than to give them to women.

With the passage in 1Timothy 2, the main problem is the fact that Paul makes reference to historical data as the basis for his instructions. He states that the reason he prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men is that in the garden, it was the woman that was deceived and not the man. This is interesting. So our quest is to find out why the woman was first deceived and not the man in the garden. Now it was Eve who was deceived first. That is to say that Adam was deceived as well so let’s not get ahead of ourselves and assume that there is a device preinstalled in men that prevents them from falling prey to deception. As a matter of fact in the book of 2Timothy Paul states categorically that there were some men teaching false doctrines, entering into homes of women who were burdened by the guilt of their own sins hence these women fell for their lies (2 Timothy 3:6). We can see that all the Apostle is advocating for is the teaching of sound doctrine. This cannot happen when the one being taught is exhibiting a haughty attitude towards the teacher. That is why he admonishes women to learn in quietness and not usurp authority over their teachers – who were men. This looks very much like the event in the garden where a woman was instructed by her husband and it was her who FIRST sinned. Was Paul admonishing all women to submit to the authority of all men? I doubt that, that is an instruction meant for married people. Paul was admonishing the women in the church to submit to sound teaching by being silent while they learn and not fall prey to deception like Eve did. 2Timothy 3 actually proves that they had already started falling for the lies of heretic male teachers in the city.

The last verse of this chapter talks about women being saved in childbearing. This is a tough one too. If you are familiar with the writings of Paul, you would know that he was vehemently opposed to any teaching that suggested that anybody could be saved in another way other than confessing Jesus. So definitely, he wasn’t saying here that women will obtain salvation in the Lord through childbirth. The word translated as ‘saved’ is ‘sozo’ – which can also mean ‘prosper’, ‘to be in good health’, ‘blessed’ etc. Therefore, we can understand that portion of scripture as Paul saying women shall prosper in childbearing. Why would he say that? Because it is believed there was a false doctrine going around intending to prohibit women from having children or even getting married. Again, we see the apostle address doctrinal issues here.

This is the end of part one of this short series. Do look out for the continuation in the next blog post. Remember to make your contributions and ask your questions in the comment section below.

References:

Ken Bailey – “Women in Ministry – Woodstock Q and A”

Adoniram Judson – “Women in Ministry”

Hugenberger – “Women in ministry”

Kaiser – “Women in Ministry, commentary on text”

One thing that made me even more excited about the movie was the gender rhetoric that undergirded the entire story – in a somewhat subtle manner, yet very profound and powerful. However, that is the same thing that caused all the controversy concerning the movie. Ok, God is portrayed as a woman in The Shack. Do I see anything blasphemous about this? Certainly not! First of all, God isn’t male either. Indeed, anytime we see God manifest in the flesh, he does so in a male body but that doesn’t mean we should assume he is a man. This desiringgod.com article did a good job of establishing the fact that even in scripture God is given so many feminine attributes. You can check it out. We would have to agree on a few things before I proceed.

1. God is not a man, he is a Spirit (according to John 4:24)
2. He created man in his own image, male and female made he them (Genesis 1:27)

It is true that when God decided to come to the earth in a human form as Jesus he was a man (male). So it was when he appeared in the form of 3 men to Abraham. All these are still not enough proof that God is male. We might have gotten accustomed to seeing God appear in the flesh as a man to the extent that we think his portrayal as a woman in a movie is heretic and blasphemous. This is so wrong. If God created man in his own image and made them male and female, appears as a male in the flesh, why can’t he appear as female as well? I’m not saying he is obligated to do that to prove a point or anything. All I’m saying is, women were made in his image too, therefore, his portrayal as a woman in the movie shouldn’t bring about this level of controversy. When Jesus was being baptized in the River Jordan, the Holy Spirit descended on him as a dove. Is this blasphemous and heretic too? Besides, this movie is even a work of fiction to project a certain aspect of God’s character that is predominantly common amongst women, so everybody can chill and just munch on the essential message of the movie.

Now that that is out of the way, back to the movie. In the early parts of the movie, we see the family set off on a trip without the woman of the house. While seeing them off she made a comment that appears casual yet pregnant with so much information. She said to the kids “I have faith in your dad’s mothering skills”. This is by far the most important statement in the entire movie. Through the harsh seasons of our lives, how much faith do we have in God’s mothering skills? Nan made this comment because she wasn’t going to be with her kids on that trip hence they need not worry because their father doubles as a mother. This is a flamboyantly colorful feather in the cap of the man. Did he live up to expectation? We shall find out soon.

On their way, his two older kids begged him to stop by a waterfall. He refused the request initially only to barge at the end. While they stood on a bridge having a closer view of the waterfall, his older kids once again asked him to tell Missy, the little one, the story of the Indian Princess. The waterfall, therefore, appears to be a site he and his elder kids had been before, maybe way before the little one was born. So he goes on to narrate the story. From the story, we find out that there was an Indian Princess, who gave up her life for the sake of her people. The waterfall was therefore created by the ‘Great Spirit’ in memory of the Princess. It is a no-brainer that this Indian Princess is an allusion to Jesus Christ. Once again, we see God portrayed as a woman.

They finally got to their destination and it was a lakeside where other families camped as well. It seemed like a pretty cool and decent place to have a little family vacation. The following morning, the two older kids were on a boat not too far away from the shore and  Missy was by her father drawing with her crayons. All of a sudden, Josh fell off the boat after his sister stood up to get the attention of their father. Mack ran, dived into the water and swam all the way to the boat to save his son. They all came back to the shore only to realize that Missy was gone. She was gone. The police couldn’t find her anywhere. Later they discovered her bloody dress in a shack up the mountain, but her body was not found.

The death of the little girl tore the family apart. Kate withdrew from the rest of the family obviously because she felt it was her fault her little sister died. Josh had also become secretive. Mack also lost faith in God. I must say the little girl is almost the perfect character to die to arouse all the needed emotions and questions that often flood our minds when we go through hard times. She was innocent, sweet and very inquisitive. All these make it hard for anybody to understand why she should die. Or why she should die in such a callous manner.

Not too long after her death, Mack checked his mailbox and found a letter in there from ‘Papa’ inviting him to the Shack up the mountain. He looked but couldn’t find a trail of footsteps in the snow leading either to or away from his mailbox. Which was pretty strange. His family nicknamed God ‘Papa’ so definitely he knew who it was. He decided to honor the invitation and go to the Shack alone although his next door neighbor had wanted to go with him. The Shack was this old dilapidated wooden structure that appeared to have been abandoned for years.

While walking through the woods, he met a young Middle Eastern man who invited him to ‘his house’. All this seemed to happen in a trance because all of a sudden the mountain became a garden with beautiful flowers – especially the path leading to the stranger’s house. Mack arrived at the house only to be introduced to the entire Godhead. Apparently, the Middle Eastern man who led him to his home was Jesus, the Son. And here is another shocker, the other two members of the Trinity were women! How strange it would be to meet the Godhead only to realize two-thirds of the trinity is female. So Papa was a black woman and the Holy Spirit was a slender Asian lady. Mack’s interactions with the Godhead marked his journey to complete healing from the hurt he felt after his daughter died. In one of his earliest interactions, Papa told him ‘after what you have been through, I didn’t think you could handle a father right now’. Papa said this right after Mack questioned her gender. This is another amazing revelation in the movie. God revealed himself to Mack as a mother because he had had a rough childhood experience with his father. Therefore, his perception of who a father is was based on the kind of relationship he had with his earthly father. This is probably why most of us can’t have a great relationship with God because we are seeing him through the lenses of our earthly fathers and those lenses are giving us a poor image of who God is. It is amazing to know that God knows when to be what in our lives. Now when Mack accused God of always abandoning those he claims he loves, especially Jesus on the cross, Papa showed him his nail-pierced wrist. Indicating that while Jesus suffered on the cross, God did too. Which means God shares in our suffering; he understands our pain.

Papa did drop some nuggets in her interaction with Mckenzie. She said “You were created to be loved. Living unloved is like clipping a bird’s wings”. Then she went on to say that ‘this is your flying lessons”. ‘This’ here refers to ‘the Shack’ experience that the Trinity was taking Mckenzie through. The painful experiences are our flying lessons. We need them to first muster the courage to fly and that is how we experience the Love of God.

Mckenzie’s next interaction was with the Spirit of God. They took a walk through a garden where the spirit made a very profound illustration. She showed Mckenzie a twig that was poisonous. Then she mentioned that on its own it is poisonous, but combining it with the nectar from a particular flower produced a substance with incredible healing powers. This goes to show us how both the good and bad times in our lives are meant to come together for a greater good. When we single out the bad times, it may seem our lives are on the rocks, but having a holistic view of our lives – both the bad and the good times – can produce incredible healing anytime we need it.

By far my favorite interaction in the movie was between Mckenzie and ‘Wisdom’. He met Wisdom in a dark cave sitting on her throne. Wisdom told him he was there, in the cave, for judgment. No, not to be judged, but to judge just as he always did throughout his life. The conversation that ensued is probably the most powerful in the movie. It was laden with so much wisdom and offered answers to questions that I have been grappling with for some time now. Why does God allow evil to happen and not do anything about it? Why can’t evil people be condemned to hell immediately to rid humanity of all the hideousness? Wisdom made some profound statements worthy of note. She quizzed, ‘doesn’t the legacy of brokenness go all the way back to Adam?’. Anytime you want to judge somebody, make sure you judge everybody else in human history whose actions had an effect on the said person – all the way to Adam. That is when you can claim to have judged the person justly. The legacy of brokenness indeed goes all the way back to Adam.

The time spent with God was an exercise to heal him of all emotional and psychological pain. So one morning Mckenzie woke up and there stood papa in the doorway. This time not a black woman but an Asian man. Papa said ‘for what we have to do today, you are gonna need a father’. BAM! So you see, God is the complete parent, no wonder he made men and women in his image. His nature couldn’t be revealed in one gender alone. When he wanted to make a being in his image he had to make two of its kind, hence we have men and women, fathers and mothers. The task that day was to get Mckenzie to forgive his daughter’s killer. This exercise required the stern persuasion of a father. That is why Papa chose to reveal himself as a man in this scene. Mckenzie did forgive the killer, pretty much to my amazement.

There is so much I want to say about the movie but time and space are not my best allies now. I learned so much from it. The shack (where Mckenzie found his daughter’s bloody clothes) represents a place of pain yet a place where God is ever present. C.S Lewis said ‘… God shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world’. God is indeed loudest in our pains if only we can pay attention and listen.

However, Grace is not just news, it is the very personality of God revealed. I wish I could repeat this a thousand times. It is a not just a message, it is the revelation of who God is by his precious Holy Spirit. Therefore just by telling it won’t cut it, we need to demonstrate Grace as well. There are people preaching the fire and brimstone of hell, seeking to scare people into accepting Jesus Christ. There is no fear in love so how can anybody last in the kingdom of God if they entered because they were afraid of the other place? It is rather sad and painful that there are people who still preach a performance-based gospel. After all what Jesus did? Why would you preach the law under the dispensation of Grace? Anyway, the reaction of those of us who claim to be enlightened in the new creation realities is my focus in this post. All of a sudden it appears the Holy Spirit is opening my eyes to the negativity exhibited by some of us ‘Grace Preachers’. How we bash our brothers and sisters who preach the law. How we tag them as ‘anti-Christ’. How we claim they are being influenced by the devil. WE ARE PREACHING GRACE WITHOUT THE SPIRIT OF GRACE.

We have reduced it to a message so we don’t know our tone, choice of words, posture, demeanor etc. can all distort the message. How different are we from those who preach the law when we have managed to tag anybody who preaches a doctrine different from ours as the anti-Christ? The message of grace is most efficacious when inspired by the Spirit of Grace. God is very much interested in the way we deliver the message as much as he is in the message getting to the intended recipient. In Jeremiah 2:2, God told the prophet to “Go and cry into the ears of Jerusalem, saying …”. See? God gave the prophet the emotions with which to express himself before he gave him the message. This goes to show that God is very much particular about how a message from Him is delivered to the intended recipients. You don’t mock another person’s theology while engaging him/her and later present the Gospel of Grace to them. Where was Grace in your conduct? Grace, that inextinguishable force that forcefully snatches people from the clutches of the enemy will never mock another person’s poor understanding of scripture. Just as Jesus was filled with compassion when he saw the multitudes, so should you be driven by a deep sense of concern and compassion anytime you encounter people who preach another gospel than Grace. It is our duty to teach such people the best way we can. This is not the time to put them down and tease them or make them feel unaccepted.

Some of us may make reference to what Paul said in Galatians 1:8 in defense of the use of harsh words on people who preach the law. Let us examine that passage, shall we? Paul was writing to the church in Galatia mainly to draw their attention to the fact that they were drifting away from the true gospel and slipping into a performance-based relationship with God. Paul was quite furious. He said if anybody, even angels, preached a gospel other than that which the Galatians had received earlier, let that person be accursed. This doesn’t justify the name-calling I’m seeing on social media. Let me explain. The preceding verse (Galatians 1:7) gives us the understanding that Paul was referring to “…those who want to distort the gospel of Jesus Christ’. The ESV translation puts it this way ‘…those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ”. Which means the people Paul is declaring accursed are those who deliberately distort the gospel of grace. We just need to understand that there are those who are doing it deliberately but there are those who are genuinely ignorant, let us not lump them all in and curse them all.

Largely, this post is about how those of us who are enlightened should treat our brethren who are not. There are two stories in the book of Acts that I would like to cite to support my assertion. The first one is the story of Apollos. He is described as “… an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures… “who taught accurately the things concerning Jesus though he only knew the baptism of John. How was Apollos competent in the scriptures and still not adequately informed about the gospel of Jesus? It is simple, no one person is the repository of biblical knowledge. That is why we need to be humble enough to listen when we are corrected and humble in the way we correct as well.

In the New Testament, the baptism of John was performance-based and it is a shadow of that which was to come. John himself said that the one to come after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. Apollos had no knowledge of this, yet he was teaching in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him preach something slightly erroneous, this was their reaction:

… but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. Acts 18:25

Did you see that? This is the Spirit of Grace on display. The spirit that makes you come to the realization that what you know was revealed to you so there is no need to flaunt it or brag about it. But whenever it is necessary, teach others in humility and not for vain recognition. Priscilla and Aquila didn’t hop onto social media to taunt the doctrine of Apollos. They didn’t call him the anti-Christ, neither did they insult him. They dragged him aside and taught him the true gospel. Apollos grew in the faith and became almost as influential in Christendom as Paul was. To the extent that in the book of Corinthians Paul said ‘What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12). See? This is the same Apollos in the book of Acts being counted amongst the champions of the Christian faith. This kind of fanaticism is not encouraged because it breeds division, however, my point remains, Apollos who was taught by Priscilla and Aquila became so influential that he had quite a following amongst the Christians of those days. Do not tear people down when they don’t know as much as you do. Offer help when you can. Teach them the right way. Call them aside, don’t call them out to embarrass them on social media. Preach Grace by the Spirit of Grace.

The second story that illustrates how the Spirit of Grace operates is the story of Cornelius the Roman Centurion. He was a devout man who prayed to God and gave generously to all who needed help. An angel appeared to him and told him to send men to bring the Apostle Peter to his house. Just around the same time, the Spirit of Grace was at work in Peter’s life. Through a vision, God was communicating to Peter that that which he (God) has called clean, no man should call unclean. This vision was in reference to the coming move of God amongst the Gentiles. Immediately the men from Cornelius arrived, Peter went with them to Caesarea. First things first, the Roman Centurion and his entire household bowed before Peter to worship him when arrived at the house. Peter asked them to rise up and he went on to say “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean”. God says we shouldn’t call anybody unclean, so how are some of us tagging others whose theology doesn’t match with ours as ‘anti-Christ’? Though Cornelius was a devout man, his knowledge of God was inadequate and that is why God sent Peter there. Notice how Peter didn’t insult him, or refer to his lack of understanding of the Grace of God and the move of the Holy Spirit; Peter went there solely to teach Cornelius and his entire household the wonderful Gospel of Grace. Peter’s being there alone was a demonstration of grace, why? Because it was unlawful for Jews to mingle with Gentiles, therefore by going there, Peter was abolishing that law and bestowing unmerited favor on the entire household of the Roman centurion. While Peter was teaching them about the Holy Spirit and the Grace of God, they were all filled with the Spirit of God and began to speak in tongues, Hallelujah! This is it! There is the demonstration of the Spirit of God when Grace is preached by the Spirit of Grace. The Spirit of Grace is the Holy Spirit, he doesn’t come to condemn, ridicule theology or embarrass people who don’t know much. He comes to convict them, save them and then pour out himself into them.

May we learn from Priscilla and Aquila. May we learn from Peter as well. May we learn from Paul too. May we get to the point where we will be driven by compassion to teach people whose knowledge of God is inadequate. This is not the time to show off or assume a high chair as a biblical scholar extraordinaire. We need a lot more well-equipped laborers on the ground, offer help to build them up when you can.