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!