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. 

In my perspective, there are two kinds of errors:

1. Institutionalised error

2. Sensational or trendy error

Institutionalised Error is mostly found in churches that have a long history of keeping their traditions and culture. I would refer to these churches as Sequoia (tree) churches. Jesus said this about the Pharisees in Mark 7:8 “you leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men”. Here Jesus posits that church tradition can very much be in contradiction with the commandment of God. Therefore, the continuous upholding of tradition over the commandment of God is what I have loosely termed as institutionalised error. The Pharisees in the New Testament were guilty of this.

Sensational or trendy Error is mostly found in churches (and propounded by men of God) that spring up seemingly from nowhere and suddenly emerge into prominence. I refer to these churches as mushroom churches. In 2 Timothy 2:7. Paul speaks of two individuals (Hymenaeus and Philetus) who were spreading a false doctrine and leading people into more ungodliness. I don’t know how long this movement lasted but from what Paul said, we can tell they had some followers. In Acts 5, Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, also mentioned 2 men (Theudas and Judas the Galilean) who emerged on the scene with false doctrines. Both of their movements garnered the support of the people. Gamaliel was even specific in the case of Theudas; he said Theudas’ movement had a following of 400 men (Acts 5:36). But the 2 movements died when the two men died. Sometimes this is what happens when the error is sensational and trendy. Because the movement was based on a false doctrine and had no deep roots in scripture, it easily topples over when the leader is no more.

Mushroom churches often idolise the man of God and Sequoia churches idolise church tradition. Both of these cultures are recipes for error. If we are going to have a holistic view of error we need to understand that it can breed in any and every church so long as Jesus isn’t the center of the ministry and sound biblical teaching is not upheld in high esteem. One can make the case that Sequoia churches are Mushroom churches that have stood the test of time and have institutionalised the sensational error they preach. This could be true, my focus, however, isn’t to point out this progression but to state that these two extremes in doctrinal errors and churches exist at every point in time. Therefore, a good church is a church that regularly takes inventory of its doctrines, culture and traditions and ensures that they still align with the word of God no matter how long they have been upheld or practised. Where there is the need for change, change must be effected. And where there is the need to further institutionalise or crystalise a doctrine or tradition, measures must be put in place to ensure this. 

Do not think you are safe from error merely because of the denomination you belong to. Do not think your church is too old to be in error. Or your church is too young to slip into error. Do not think your pastor is too trained to slip into error. Do not think your pastor is too anointed to slip into error.  Do not think your church is too institutionalised to allow error to find its way into the pulpit. Your church’s traditions could be so institutionalised and crystalised not because the integrity of the word of God is being protected, but because the traditions of men are being regarded more highly than the word. It takes a lot to deal with both kinds of errors mentioned above, but it must be done and done well. 

We should all commit to the discipline of studying the word thoroughly and regularly and be guided by it, especially in the selection of the church we attend and the men of God we listen to. A well-balanced prayer and bible-study lifestyle is key in submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit and discerning error no matter how trendy or institutionalized it is. We should be led by the Spirit and not by our own thinking as to what is sound teaching and what is not. Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as the spirit of truth for a reason. We find the truth of God’s word when our studies are guided and led by him. He is ever ready and willing to lead us into all truth. 

Feature image by @frankfmx on Instagram

A poem that seeks to reveal the heart of GOD CONCERNING THE CHURCH.