Prophets and Prophecy

It is amazing how almost any pastor or evangelist now fronts themselves as a prophet. In fact the world is flooded with prophetic word after another until it is becoming almost impossible to distinguish a pastor from a prophet; a singer from a prophet. In fact you will see almost anybody in Christian ministry wanting to demonstrate the prophetic in one way or the other.

Who is a prophet? What is prophecy? How does a prophet operate? What is a prophetic word? Does the Bible have anything to say about such things? Is there a difference between Bible prophets and our popular prophets? What about false prophets? Which yardstick do we use to gauge the whole area of prophets and prophecy? Can we use the Bible to know between the true and the false, the God-sent and the stomach-sent?

Where does a prophet get his mandate? Where does he get his affirmation? Who is the prophet answerable to? Is relevance a requirement for the prophet? What about popularity?

What really is a prophetic word? What is the purpose of the same? What is the difference between a prophetic word and a motivational speech, a prophetic word and an uplifting sermon? Are they all the same? Is there any difference between prophecy and soothsaying, prophecy and foretelling? 

You may be wondering why I am asking all these questions. But I am sure with all the confusion being caused by the use or misuse of prophecy, and especially the prophetic word you may have been wondering who will ask these questions.

I have on several occasions been confronted by confusion by one too many Christians wondering why a prophetic word seems to be a direct copy of another. This is how it happened. A person attends a meeting where a prophet is the leading light. The said prophet gives a prophecy which this person had heard almost word for word in another prophetic meeting or a TV program. How does it happen? I won’t have minded much if it was an isolated incident. But such incidents have become all too common.

This reminds me of a word in Jeremiah. ‘Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbor’ (Jeremiah 23:30). This is not a new thing. True prophets have dealt with it age after age.

I believe that a prophet is a person who lives in so great proximity with God that he is able to paint a very accurate picture of His face. That is what I see when I study the Bible. A prophet is not a person who simply has words that can move people to admire him. In fact the opposite is the case. He knows God so well that he will be offended should he receive accolades for his prophecy because he knows that he is not the object of the same.

Foretelling is a very small aspect of prophecy, though that is what many people think prophecy is. Moses still remains the greatest of the prophets. How many events did he foretell? What about David? Read even Isaiah and Jeremiah to get to what I am trying to say here.

What we have as prophets in our days are people who, instead of painting that Face are busy painting caricatures. Some are painting a very grim face of a divine who does not care anything for His people as long as what the prophet has said comes to pass. In the past few months some things have happened and some people would tell me that it had been prophesied. The question is, under what context was it given and what was its purpose? Many times the purpose was to show that the prophet ‘knew’. That is sad because such would be disqualified from being called a prophet. Even the devil can foretell some things and we know of his servants who are specialists in that aspect. God does not foretell to demonstrate His knowledge as He does not need to demonstrate anything. 

The other will paint a cartoon sort of face, a harmless joke to all who look. These will present a god who really does not care as He has no standards. He might as well be a benevolent godfather who has enough goodies to share yet too senile to hold us accountable for what He gives us. To some He is a slot machine. With the right combination and a ‘seed’ we can be able to get anything we want.

But let us look at the prophets of old.

Samuel almost never spoke of the future as our ‘prophets’ do, yet he was among the most momentous prophets. What did he do? He simply brought about a revival in Israel. Among the highlights of his life was a prayer life that God mentioned more than once.

Moses is one person all religions agree was a prophet, yet in his books there is very little of foretelling we see. His prophetic role enabled him to guide the transition from slavery to self determination. He was known for being so close to God that anything opposed to him was known to be opposed to God.

Of course we know Jeremiah because of the seventy years prophecy. But what do you see when you read his book? It presents a preacher of righteousness instead of a grim foreteller of future events. In fact the few times he foretold a near event was in response to direct opposition to his call for repentance. ‘Repent and live’ was his message for most of his duration as prophet.

Haggai was concerned with the rebuilding of the temple, as was Zechariah.

Apart from revealing Christ to Israel (which in itself was not foretelling), we don’t have any foretelling in john the Baptist’s ministry, yet Christ said he was greater then the greatest in the kingdom.

In fact you will find that on the whole the prophets were more involved with the present than the future. Their glimpses of the future were in fact meant to influence the present for God.

Our prophets have grossly misrepresented God by taking prophesy to mean what the agnostics believed – that they have a deeper awareness of the spiritual, or by making God to be at our mercy, providing our every whim. This brings God down to materialism, equating spirituality with material prosperity, forgetting what Jesus asked, ‘what will it profit you if you gain the whole world but lose your soul?’ If that is the purpose of our prophets, then they are false. If that is what we are looking for in them, we are deluded.

There are more important things in life than that visa or scholarship. There is more to life than the excitement you get from the prophetic word. God is interested in your future, not just concerning your education or promotion but even beyond this present life. That car does not define you. That new house is not your heritage in God. There simply is more to life than this present life. Prophecy that will keep my focus here and now is not from God. This is because I might in the pursuit of this life lose the life without end. That is why these prophets rile me. They are not seeking to bring people to God, though they profess to do so. They are not confronting sin in the camp. They are more interested in Prados than patience, Range Rovers than revelation. They seek to whet your appetite for things of this world than increase your thirst for things that are eternal.

Let us address some issues common today. This girl dresses very flimsily, it can be called provocatively, if not temptingly. She comes to me her pastor who on looking at her notices the danger she is in, if not the one she places me in (in fact you will see them sitting in the front pews where the preacher is in plain view) I then proceed to tell her that I can see that men are seeking to exploit, even abuse her. Now that might be accurate, but it does not take a prophet to see. And this is the distinction – a prophet steps in to guide the person to avoid danger. He will thus confront the girl concerning her dressing and tell her why her continuing in such is likely to attract abuse because it sends the wrong signals to men. The Bible calls such the attire of a harlot. A prophet is saddened by his word coming true because the reason he speaks it is to help the people he ministers to to connect to God’s purpose for their life. But these prophets are more interested in what they get out of the prophecy than in changing the world for God. You see confronting the girl might drive her from giving you that offering, planting that seed. It might ultimately drive her from sitting in front of you to ‘excite’ you. Sorry I have to become this harsh. But it does not need any spirituality to ‘see’ the end of such dressing.

Or you see parents who are too lenient on their children to the point that they have become ‘sons of Belial’. They are becoming a nuisance wherever they are, from school to the church. The prophet tells the parents that he can see them weeping in the near future. Any fool can see that. What the prophet ought to do is confront the parents early enough on their neglect of their parental responsibility and warn them to stop making gods out of their children since any god who is not the creator will be feeding from the devil. They may run out of his church but sooner or later they will see the sense in such prophecy even leading them to deliver their children from hell. In any case truth is not negotiable for the prophet.

One thing I will say is true of every true prophet of God is their unflinching attitude towards sin and hypocrisy. A true prophet can not be bought however high the price is taken. Trying to do so will take your sin from the private realm where he was trying to correct you to the public arena where he will expose your attempt to muzzle God’s message by trying to buy it. At one time leaders approach Ezekiel seeking to know God’s will. But then God exposes their hearts by confronting them with the fact that they were holding to their idols in their hearts. Even Jeremiah was approached in a similar way and He told them to stop trying to pretend to want to know God’s will when they had already decided on their cause of action. In both cases the attempt at pleasing the prophet was met by judgment from God Himself.

One of the greatest differences between the prophets in the Bible and our present day prophets is the impact of their prophecy. While today prophets are feted, in the past they most likely died for their prophecies. A confrontation with a true prophet left you with two distinct options; you either changed or sought to eliminate that voice. That was how most prophets died. Jonah, the reluctant prophet led a revival in the most wicked city of his time. Jeremiah was detained severally without trial. In fact several assassination attempts were made on his life. They severally sought to compromise him and when that failed sought to defame him. In fact that was the fare of most prophets.

Compare that to the prophets of today. They are constant guests in state dinners and are always delivering prophetic words even to wicked rulers, and not confronting them to change. Imagine John the Baptist in such a situation! He died for refusing to lie low as a very ruthless despot broke God’s laws, especially because he was keen to be identified with the Jews. He knew that he would most likely be killed but he did not consider his life of a greater premium that God’s message.

The Castaway

But I buffet my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway (1Corinthians 9: 27)

Was that a reality or even a possibility for someone of Paul’s caliber? Was he just threatening us against being sloppy in our Christian responsibility? Was he just throwing words in the air? Or had he so much in his heart that those words ‘accidentally’ splashed onto the letter?

How could he dare imagine such things, leave alone write them to redeemed saints? Or he may have been shaking the comfort off those who had become complacent in their Christian responsibilities? Are there other places in the scriptures we see such an admonition?

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame (Hebrews 6: 4 – 6)

The same warning by a different writer, this one going even farther to talk not only about the ministry but the experience someone has gone through before falling away.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7: 21 – 23)

Now these are the words of the Master Himself. Does this close our argument? Will we be content with that? I don’t think so.

I am a Baptist and we are known for the doctrine of security of believers. Does this disqualify our position? I don’t think so. What do these scriptures mean to one like me?

I think the primary focus is the minister. The standard for the minister is not like that of any other Christian. I am convinced that what is assurance to a normal Christian simply does not apply to the minister.

Why do I say so? James warns us against hastily being teachers since our judgment is stricter than that of others. That seems to be the position taken by the discourse Christ gave and the Hebrews passage, even Paul’s position. Ministry connects us to the depths of God in such a way that we are not just sinning, ours becomes absolute rebellion since I am convinced what we mainly deal with are not simple temptations but like what Lucifer encountered in heaven, supplanting God’s authority. And that is not negotiable, even debatable.

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)

Do we have Biblical examples? Consider Moses. Aaron made the golden calf and was forgiven. Miriam rebelled against Moses and was confronted by God Himself, yet was forgiven when she repented. Moses was faithful for forty years. He made just one mistake which disqualified him from the Promised Land. Was God fair to a servant He spoke with face to face? God hearkened to Moses as he pled for the Israelites again and again, yet He ordered Moses not to mention the issue of going to the Promised Land again. But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and would not hear me: and the LORD said unto me, Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto me of this matter (Deuteronomy 3:26) Yet we know that before Moses did it he was under so much pressure that I am sure most, if not all of us would do the same not once like Moses, but repeatedly.

Saul was wicked. He sought to kill David and even killed eighty five priests, almost an entire priestly family. He even consulted a witch. Yet we don’t see his descendants being condemned forever. David only committed adultery and covered up, yet we find his whole lineage condemned for that.

I want us to look at the reasons God gave for the sentence He passed on ‘the man after His own heart’. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme …’ (2 Samuel 11:14) you see being on a pedestal makes everything you do have an impact on a greater throng than if you are in the crowd. I remember an illustration I once heard that makes this so clear. When a very huge tree in a forest falls, it does not fall alone; it falls with many other smaller trees. And that is leadership.

We see the same when we read Jude talking about a quarrelling over Moses’ body between angels and the devil. Why? Probably because of that one sin Moses committed.

I thought about another thing with respect to this topic. Remember the eunuchs? These were men who were castrated to be entrusted with the secrets of kingdoms. They could enter any part of the palace because their ambition was only one lifetime long. Taking the seed from him made him the safest character around the throne because he had no descendants to scheme for.

Many of us think that this was a punishment but I beg to disagree. It was a privilege many yearned for because as long as that kingdom lasted you never lost your coveted position. A eunuch was the only person who could safely serve even four successive kings because he was completely trustworthy. In the case of Daniel he was able to serve two different and opposing kingdoms, Babylonian and Medo-Persian though he was a Jewish royal.

The nationality of the eunuch was irrelevant since it could not be passed on to any other generation. You see the eunuch lived for the present since he had no future and that was a great asset to any king. He guarded his present with his life since he only had that one life to live.

The eunuchs were the ones who prepared women for the king to sleep with as we see in the book of Esther. They could look and touch places nobody else was even allowed to approach. Remember Haman was killed just for going close to Esther? Yet the eunuchs literally lived all day and night with the queens and concubines, washing them, massaging them and all other things women require to be attractive in the court.

Why do I compare ministers with eunuchs? The first reason I think of is that ministry takes one very deep in the things of God. In ministry we are allowed to access privileges others can’t even imagine. We are able to gain authority over people and situations rulers crave and never get. We are even able to access secrets to men’s hearts and even their schemes. I could go on and on. In short ministry will gain us spiritual and other access nothing else can.

But that is not because of our persona. And that is where the problem is. And that is where we are supposed to remember the eunuch. We are gaining it for the kingdom. All these privileges are just the benefits the kingdom gives me for being loyal to it. Once I forget that and start thinking posterity a major problem arises. I will not just become worthless to the kingdom but will become a great liability to the same. 

Why was Moses not appointed High Priest yet he was the one who fitted that role perfectly? He was the one who prepared, taught and anointed the priesthood. Why were his descendants ‘just’ Levites while the man who made the golden calf was appointed to the priesthood with his descendants? I think this is the reason. Spiritual authority is not hereditary. Though one can have a spiritual heritage, he can not access spiritual authority the same way. 

What does that have to do with our topic of discussion? I think that is the place most ministers go wrong and lose it. The difference between the eunuchs and ministers is that the eunuchs were operated on. The minister on the other hand has to make a choice to be so and can decide to reverse it at will. The other problem is that he has a posterity and that in itself is a great temptation to forget the vows to the Kingdom. 

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12)

The minister falls in the third category. We are accessing privileges in the kingdom for the sake of the kingdom and not for our posterity. Why do I say so? There is a very thin line between the kingdom and my family unless I am very focused on the kingdom itself. And that seems to be the teaching here.

Where does the problem start? I think it starts with the minister equating the ministry with his person. Then he will find it easy to forget that there are privileges he can only access because of the ministry. Having been in ministry for long makes it very easy for one to fall for that. Do we realize that it is what happened to Moses?

And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? (Numbers 20:10)

He knew God enough to confidently call out water. He knew God and His love enough to know that His, or his people could not die from thirst. It therefore did not matter what he said or did. He took God casually because he knew Him well enough. Remember him pleading for Israel?

Lest the land whence thou broughtest us out say, Because the LORD was not able to bring them into the land which he promised them, and because he hated them, he hath brought them out to slay them in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 9:28)

Remember him using God’s mercy as the bargaining chip with God?

He knew God too much to bow to the pressure of men. Even he could not expect to be excused, especially him. That was not something they could negotiate with God. Moses knew God too much to qualify for leniency. And that is the way it is with ministers. Our yardstick is way up there, not so that we pride ourselves on our closeness with God or use it for leverage but to keep us even more alert for the schemes of the evil one. 

And that is where posterity becomes a liability. If it was only my name on the block it would not mean much to me. It would not be so hard to lose all for Christ. And that is why most daredevils are people without families since they have only themselves to consider. Their death or disability matters very little, especially if they have money that would take care of the consequences. A family man is another case altogether. He has to think more for his family than of himself. He will go without food so his family can have. He forgoes many things so that his family can access them. 

Being in ministry without any outwardly predictable support makes this point very sticky. I can go without much in terms of basic needs because I chose to go with God all the way. I don’t suffer any guilt if I have to walk because I lack fare. I have no issue foregoing a meal or two because God did not promise me a smooth ride. My clothes can be worn out and it will not down me in the least because I know my source and my covenant with Him.

Bring the family along and the equation completely changes. You see God called me. He did not call them, even my wife. She followed me probably because the call then was very attractive to her; more like Lot followed Abraham or Michal followed David. Challenges of ministry may not have meant anything to her even when I challenged her on the same. Ministry to her may have meant great adventure because then my life made a lot of sense because the challenges I was handling were on the fringes of deeper involvement with God. There was a girl we were considering marriage who opted out when the extent of my calling started becoming evident.

But deprivation changes the picture completely. That was not anything she considered, at least the extent of it. When food becomes scarce she then starts having second thought about her commitment. Then she considers the options, men who are not called into the kind of ministry you are called to. They therefore start exerting a lot of pressure on you to be like other men, leading a more predictable and comfortable life.

I believe that is what happened to Solomon and Ahab. Jezebel gradually turned the king inward, thus taking advantage of his authority, the thing we are talking about here. And this is what has happened to many pastors these days. They have started using their spiritual authority for their own benefit. 

How many pastors have made their wives assistant pastors, the deputy CEOs of their churches? Some go as far as getting their children into senior positions in ‘their’ ministry. No wonder many such wives die untimely deaths since they may not have the spiritual stamina for the ministry and will thus not be able to handle the spiritual pressure of their positions. Chances are also that they may have not have had developed the spiritual muscle consistent with the positions they are given. Some even call ministries after their names. I am leaving out the devil’s active participation in such affairs for obvious reasons.

Why do they do this? I think the first reason is that ministry leadership is probably the most insecure position anywhere in the world. Spiritual leadership is therefore not a position that we can count on for posterity. One reason is that spiritually I have to be close to God to deserve the position. Yet that is not the main threat to the position since that is something I am in control of. The main reason is that my spirituality will many times attract a following and bring forth fruit, even become very attractive to resources. The world will be drawn to that as bees to pollen. Since they will not be drawn to my spirituality, they will seek to corrupt the structures I have developed to take over the ‘empire’ I have built by the sweat of my brow. Some will seek to compromise me so that they can access what is mine. Others will fight to wrest the structure from me since they know that they can not be able to control it as much as long as I am around. They will thus gradually take over the leadership and then push me out. Of course we have the crafty who will be my most ardent ‘supporters’ who appear ready to die for me since they know that is the way to access the privileges my ministry has developed.

 These are the ones who will insist on making sure that the pastor leads a very comfortable life, free from real exposure to the ministry he is called to. They will therefore insist that the system buys the minister more toys than a child would require, only that these will be so expensive, many times because they are the ones who will be tasked with buying them, yet at the expense of the ministry.

With a position as insecure as this, what will I need to ensure my posterity is secure? One way is to make sure that the system I develop is more or less personal property. And that is why I become the chief executive and my family my assistants. Then I will not be under any threat. The other way is to make sure that I save for the rainy day by milking the system, making the system invest in my future through buying me investments and making me live a life free from expense. Another way is making ministry a part time enterprise. I must save for the rainy day for my posterity at all costs, even if it means starting an enterprise by the side of ministry.

Ever noticed that today we have made what was normal look most ungodly? Paul and Barnabas were the exceptions in as far as ministry support was concerned. In fact we see him saying that he had decided to forgo his rights for support. The rest depended on the church for support. Even Christ said as much when He sent His disciples to preach. In fact it was the same principle God employed when He talked about the Levites. They were not to be given farming land because they were to live on serving God. God was their inheritance.

Yet we find even ministers, especially who are on a payroll even rebuke a minister who has been called out of a payroll because tent-making is the only ministry support mode for our times. Some actually imply that there is no other option. They will even discourage their people from considering supporting such ministers because ‘God does not operate that way’. Yet that is what the Bible emphatically teaches. I don’t know of any ministers who were on anybody’s payroll when I read the Bible. They simply received the support of the church. I actually believe that a minister can not be paid – of course because they are not working for the ministry (church) but are serving God. I therefore don’t look for a salary when I am considering ministry since I can only be facilitated to serve God through the people He sends my way.

But I digress. Posterity is the number one reason for this compromise, even corruption of what is very clear in the Bible. It is normal to want to leave my posterity better than I was raised. And that is the problem we are dealing with.

You see ministry is unto God. He is the one who owns me and my posterity. Taking my posterity in my hands, especially by corrupting God’s principles and standards is extremely dangerous. Not only is it dangerous for me but is especially so for the posterity I am so concerned for. That is the reason it is very instructive to consider the eunuch. This means leaving them fully in the hands of God who has called me. Then my posterity is in far better hands.

I think this is the reason Jeremiah was ordered not to get married, I think so that he will remain focused on the ministry God had called him to without being unduly concerned for his family due to the times he lived. Paul said as much in 1^st Corinthians 7. Remember Ezekiel being ordered not to mourn his wife? No wonder it is called the higher calling! We are supposed to make choices for God which may run directly counter to our main interests, especially concerning our posterity. Posterity is one great motivation to bend the rules of our calling in order to build a nest for our future. I am sure that the greediest grabbers have posterity as their driving force.

And that is the reason Christ challenged us to really count the cost before endeavoring to follow Him. This is because the cost is most prohibitive. It is only by grace that we are able to do it. This includes our choice to make ourselves eunuchs for the kingdom. By this I mean following God without looking back, first at what I left and second at the ones following me. It will necessarily mean leaving my posterity in the hands of Him whose call I have responded to.

Failure to do so will open the same posterity to judgment through me. I will lose the only connection that can safely assure my posterity of all security. Again this brings another scripture to mind

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? (Luke 9: 23 – 25)

Does this bring any clarity on our topic? I hope so. Though my system cries unceasingly for my posterity, God seems to say that my security lies more in what I lose than what I gain, in fact there is no assurance about the gaining.

I don’t know whether this is the reason quite a number of minister’s children turn out the opposite of what their parents preached and practiced. Could it be that they took ministry as personal property and diverted all inward? Could it be that they became scared of being unfairly shoved aside from the ministry they had invested so heavily that they consciously created structures that entrenched them at the helm? Could it be that they became workaholics so that they remain being wanted, neglecting their family in the process? Could it be that they forgot that the family is a vital aspect of ministry and converted them to just recipients of his largesse?

I know there are more reasons for the same and will not want even to deal with them as this is not the main thrust of this message. I also don’t want us for a moment to forget that the minister is in the devil’s crosshairs from the moment he responded to God’s call because the enemy can safely predict the damage the minister will have on his kingdom should he remain focused on his calling. In fact most would have focused on that aspect but I choose to focus on what I have control of, my actions, decisions and attitudes. And that is the reason I am talking of things that have a capacity of calling for God’s wrath on the minister.

Joseph is one person who wraps up much of what we are saying here. He is exposed to so much trust yet puts a limit to the extent of his authority. Just look at how he responds to an approach many would treat as a breakthrough, a great open door.

But he … said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand; There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? (Gen 39:8, 9) 

He knew the limits of his authority. It may have been probable that even that master won’t have minded him sleeping with his wife so that he can raise such a bright kid in his name but Joseph knew God’s standard, even in a godless society. And no wonder that he could access authority that nobody else had though you can be sure many sought. And he had just suggested that they look for a man and everybody realized that only Joseph had any capacity for carrying out his recommendation.

Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. (Genesis 41:41, 44)

We would expect Joseph to take such authority with zest as it did not entail any consultation. He was the boss, period. The only thing he couldn’t be is called the Pharaoh. Yet we see him consulting the king who according to the authority he had delegated actually was much more junior to Joseph. He was only a ceremonial king with all the other duties handed over to Joseph. That is what the signet signified. Yet Joseph was so submitted to God that this power had no chance of getting into his head.

We see him consulting the king again and again especially when it concerned his family being settled in Egypt. Though he had the authority I am convinced he didn’t think it fair to make a decision on his family just because all authority belonged to him. The fact that the king allowed him everything he asked did not give Joseph leeway to overlook him. The fact that even the king was authoritatively subject to his leadership did not give Joseph the blank cheque to do all that he wanted. It seems so foolish of him not to have changed the constitution to give unlimited privileges to his posterity after his demise since I am sure the king, even all of Egypt would have been delighted to extend the same to a person of Joseph’s caliber. Is that how we operate?

Let us look also at Christ. He was God in the flesh when He walked the earth. He had all authority as He said in Matthew 28, yet we do not see Him putting even 1% of the same to use. He is being harassed by everybody from the devil he created to an earthly army to a priesthood that He had established. Imagine being spat on by a person you had created! He had authority to deal with all conclusively. You see He was the one who sent the chariots and armies of fire all around Elisha and they were even then under his authority. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew 26:53) It was only that He knew the limits of His authority were the assignment He had come to accomplish.

If these two cases do not help us understand what I have been trying to explain with so many words, then I will close my case by giving this passage to meditate on. 

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:6 – 8)

Let me close by saying that I am also a minister and what I write probably applies more to me than to you. But I hope that the challenge God has given me will encourage you to look at your ministry the way God would look at it to see whether He is pleased with our efforts at serving Him.

May we be found the good and faithful servants that God will reward us with even greater authority! Otherwise we could be tossed aside to a place there is weeping and gnashing of teeth with the dogs as Christ warned.

Gituma M’Ikiara +254 722 220 147

gitumastudent@yahoo.com

Balaam and Politically Correct Answers

Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him (Numbers 31: 16, 17)

It is interesting how possible it is for someone of high moral integrity to fall for some slight bending of what truth they stood for all their lives. I know that I can’t throw any epithets at anyone because I have also fallen short a number of times especially in the face of either embarrassment or ‘danger’. Then we tend to justify a partial answer or partial truth since we know the actual truth has a capacity of putting us in the path of ‘untold suffering’.

But is a partial answer an answer? Is a half truth the truth? That is what we are dealing with here. I write this because in the few times I have fallen to the justification of a partial truth answer I have felt utterly defiled by the same, completely ashamed of myself. I have felt such a coward for falling to such levels when many times I can comfortably face a lion of an opponent without caring for the outcome because I know God is with me when I am following His truth. And you will realize that the things we will fall for are normally trite, with little capacity of endangering our lives or fortunes.

Look at Peter. He could face the army that had come to arrest Jesus and even use a sword against them. What happened later in the night that he could deny Christ with an oath when faced by a girl? Which was riskier? In the first instance he was standing for what he knew to be right. Like he had confessed he was ready to die for Jesus. Had he forgotten that when he was asked by a maiden whether he knew Christ? I can’t say that. What I know is that the circumstances had changed making the situation quite different. At the first he was fighting for his master. In the next it was for his ‘comfort’. You see he had to continue warming himself with the others with all the conversation that goes with that and of course we know those characters were not sympathetic to his cause. He simply had to blend. That question was totally unrelated with his relationship to Christ because it was part of the conversation of a hostile crowd. He simply couldn’t say he knew Christ because he was not ready to become the focus of the crowd. Simply said his desire to be close to his master had led him to a situation that made it impossible to acknowledge their relationship. No wonder he wept bitterly when the truth dawned on him.

Balaam was offered great wealth to curse Israel. God said no. But God added something else. He said that He had blessed Israel meaning that it was futile for anyone to attempt cursing them. When he took the answer to the emissaries of the king, he became politically correct and refused to give the complete answer God had given. Why? I think he realized that a complete answer could have locked out other opportunities to meet the king. I think he may have tried to meet the king earlier unsuccessfully. He may even have tried to take God’s message to him but failed again and again. Of course we know that the main recipients of prophesies are kings because they hold the spiritual reins of their people. The fact that he had sought Balaam was probably an opportunity of a lifetime for the prophet. He just could not lock out such an opportunity by giving the complete answer. Like we will say in our justifying of it, there is always time to complete the statement. So of course the prophet left the options open by his partial answer.

And that is where the problem lies. That is the genesis of rebellion. We are responsible for leaving our options open. What we don’t have is the direction the options will take. The king sees an opening and takes it by the horns. He thinks the prophet is simply upping the stakes and therefore does exactly that. He gives him a simply irresistible offer. 

The prophet is now in a fix. He can not complete the answer God gave and he has been given an offer that has completely changed his game plan. He is the one now on the receiving end. What to do now?

He realizes that he needed to go back to God to bail him out of the mess he had gotten himself into. But God is not our errand boy. He does not play by our rules. Since He is not the one who got us into the mess we created, we do not expect him to panic because we got stuck. 

God moves the direction the prophet had chosen. He allows him to go but demonstrates that it was because Balaam was bent on going anyway by the donkey situation. The prophet is caught but we do not see him repenting. It seems like he was surprised, more like he was exclaiming, ‘you mean you were serious you did not want me to go?’ Therefore God allows him to go as he had wanted, but places a guard on his mouth. He could not say just what he wanted. That was tough enough because he already knew what God wanted.

I will also call it the fear to offend since we know that truth at times can be the most offensive thing on earth, no wonder true prophets were always in danger and many died for the truth they continued to proclaim. I am even now smarting from the hurt from something similar to that from a business relationship. We gave a friend a book to print according to the terms he gave expecting him to get us the books after five days as he had indicated. We then got into a very difficult situation because he was always promising to give us the books first one day then another. When we probed deeper we realized that he had not even started the initial steps yet he continued to be very convincing. Since he is a ‘brother’ I trusted his explanations until the time got to two and half weeks and the work was nowhere nearing completion and the author had already announced the launch and it was due. That was when we realized what had happened. The fellow used the deposit we had given him elsewhere and was now scraping around for the money to do the books. He confessed the same when we confronted him. We now have to dig deeper to get the work done in time, all because of a person who fears to offend. He has wasted over two weeks of several people’s lives because he feared to say that he did wrong yet the situation could have been rescued had he said that from the beginning.

Balaam now gets to get the great moment with the king. The only difference is that he now has no opportunity to disclose to the king the complete message from God. You see the reception is even better than red carpet. How does one slap such a reception with the unsavory second part of God’s message? That was simply impractical. Another opportunity had to be sought. He therefore resorts to trying to squeeze God’s message through, but then realizes that the expectation of the king is such that there is no allowance for the same. He is now boxed.

He then gets to play cat and mouse game with God, hoping against hope that God will save him from embarrassment, even danger by allowing him just a slight chance of cursing the uncursable even only to spare the prophet embarrassment from the king and his court. What appeared like a slight detour from God’s direction has now become a very big issue. But like I had said earlier God is not bound to our expectations. He therefore does not play the prophet’s ball.

The prophet now enrages the king almost to the point of being killed for doing the opposite of what he had been called to do. He may have been expelled from the kingdom, maybe even threatened with jail for refusing to curse the enemy. This makes the opportunity he had compromised so much to access become even more impossible than before. He not only has failed to impress the king but he had done the unimaginable, closed any door that could have opened at a later time. The opportunity he had sought for God to make a difference in Moab had achieved worse than the opposite, it had completely alienated the messenger.

A person who was brought by an escort is being ordered to flee, probably for his life. That was not something he even remotely considered. As a liability to the king, you can be sure that his life was in danger not only because he had no escort but even more because he had become an enemy of the state. It was therefore unimaginable that he attempts to take the journey home alone. Again compare this with Peter being confronted by a maiden. But he simply can’t stay in Moab. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. He simply ran out of options. Of course he can’t go to Israel because they knew what he had come to do. Now if that is not a difficult position we might just have to define what a difficult position is.

Another thing we have to consider is that one can not be able to conceal royal escort. Everybody all around knew that Balaam had not only been summoned by the king but the king had desperately sought his assistance. Were it today we would have almost all the media houses fixated by the news. ‘Obscure prophet on a special assignment with the king’, would run most papers. ‘The king in secret meeting with the renowned prophet’, would scream another. ‘Balaam hits it big with the king desperately seeking his assistance’, would be another headline.

With such publicity, there would definitely be the expectation that Balaam had really hit it big. Or who leaves a king’s presence empty handed? Leaving the kings presence without escort would make him open to all manner of attacks for the booty he was expected to have acquired. Robbers would certainly have started plotting how to access the riches he must have had gotten. Enemies of the king would also have schemed to punish him for going to assist the king. No explanation could have convinced people that he had not hit the jackpot, not with the king seeking personal audience with the prophet. Leaving Moab unescorted was therefore out of the question.

I believe it is under such pressure that he puts his experience as a prophet in good stead. Since God is a God with very high standards, any breach of the same automatically will open them to the judgment of God. I think this is what he must have explained the guys who were charged with ridding Moab of his presence. Of course this makes sense and they must have taken advantage of the information to bring the prophet in the presence of the king with the new revelation.

To cut the long story short he was able to gain prominence because of the counsel to the point that he became quite popular in Moab.

What about his initial vision of sharing God’s message to the king? Of course he was still looking for the opportunity to share it though it was becoming a greater impossibility with each passing day.

He died without sharing the gospel with the king, just because he feared to offend him with God’s complete message. Worse still he died the death of the ungodly from the judgment of God. The delay he thought will open a better opportunity to minister to Moab turned out to be his grave.

That is what fear to offend normally results in. Trying to be obtain favor using your own designs is the same thing. I have over the years wondered at the departure of ministers from the straight and narrow not through sinful lifestyles but comfortable sermons. It has disturbed me over the years that ministers who in the past were recognized for their spot on rebuking of sin in the camp seem most comfortable with abominations because they finally evolved into motivational speakers who must keep people thoroughly entertained and feeling good despite their spiritual or moral condition.

This reminds me of a story repeated over and over about an Arab and his camel. This guy had a small tent and owned a camel. One day the weather was very bad and the camel pleaded with the boss that due to the unfavorable weather could he at least allow him to get his head into the tent? The good man agreed. A short while later he pleaded for his neck and was allowed. Then the front legs and he succeeded. Finally he said, ‘it appears the tent is too small for both of us’, kicking the good guy out of his tent.

That is what will happen with compromise, which is what happened to Balaam.

Balaam and Politically Correct Answers

Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him (Numbers 31: 16, 17)

It is interesting how possible it is for someone of high moral integrity to fall for some slight bending of what truth they stood for all their lives. I know that I can’t throw any epithets at anyone because I have also fallen short a number of times especially in the face of either embarrassment or ‘danger’. Then we tend to justify a partial answer or partial truth since we know the actual truth has a capacity of putting us in the path of ‘untold suffering’.

But is a partial answer an answer? Is a half truth the truth? That is what we are dealing with here. I write this because in the few times I have fallen to the justification of a partial truth answer I have felt utterly defiled by the same, completely ashamed of myself. I have felt such a coward for falling to such levels when many times I can comfortably face a lion of an opponent without caring for the outcome because I know God is with me when I am following His truth. And you will realize that the things we will fall for are normally trite, with little capacity of endangering our lives or fortunes.

Look at Peter. He could face the army that had come to arrest Jesus and even use a sword against them. What happened later in the night that he could deny Christ with an oath when faced by a girl? Which was riskier? In the first instance he was standing for what he knew to be right. Like he had confessed he was ready to die for Jesus. Had he forgotten that when he was asked by a maiden whether he knew Christ? I can’t say that. What I know is that the circumstances had changed making the situation quite different. At the first he was fighting for his master. In the next it was for his ‘comfort’. You see he had to continue warming himself with the others with all the conversation that goes with that and of course we know those characters were not sympathetic to his cause. He simply had to blend. That question was totally unrelated with his relationship to Christ because it was part of the conversation of a hostile crowd. He simply couldn’t say he knew Christ because he was not ready to become the focus of the crowd. Simply said his desire to be close to his master had led him to a situation that made it impossible to acknowledge their relationship. No wonder he wept bitterly when the truth dawned on him.

Balaam was offered great wealth to curse Israel. God said no. But God added something else. He said that He had blessed Israel meaning that it was futile for anyone to attempt cursing them. When he took the answer to the emissaries of the king, he became politically correct and refused to give the complete answer God had given. Why? I think he realized that a complete answer could have locked out other opportunities to meet the king. I think he may have tried to meet the king earlier unsuccessfully. He may even have tried to take God’s message to him but failed again and again. Of course we know that the main recipients of prophesies are kings because they hold the spiritual reins of their people. The fact that he had sought Balaam was probably an opportunity of a lifetime for the prophet. He just could not lock out such an opportunity by giving the complete answer. Like we will say in our justifying of it, there is always time to complete the statement. So of course the prophet left the options open by his partial answer.

And that is where the problem lies. That is the genesis of rebellion. We are responsible for leaving our options open. What we don’t have is the direction the options will take. The king sees an opening and takes it by the horns. He thinks the prophet is simply upping the stakes and therefore does exactly that. He gives him a simply irresistible offer. 

The prophet is now in a fix. He can not complete the answer God gave and he has been given an offer that has completely changed his game plan. He is the one now on the receiving end. What to do now?

He realizes that he needed to go back to God to bail him out of the mess he had gotten himself into. But God is not our errand boy. He does not play by our rules. Since He is not the one who got us into the mess we created, we do not expect him to panic because we got stuck. 

God moves the direction the prophet had chosen. He allows him to go but demonstrates that it was because Balaam was bent on going anyway by the donkey situation. The prophet is caught but we do not see him repenting. It seems like he was surprised, more like he was exclaiming, ‘you mean you were serious you did not want me to go?’ Therefore God allows him to go as he had wanted, but places a guard on his mouth. He could not say just what he wanted. That was tough enough because he already knew what God wanted.

I will also call it the fear to offend since we know that truth at times can be the most offensive thing on earth, no wonder true prophets were always in danger and many died for the truth they continued to proclaim. I am even now smarting from the hurt from something similar to that from a business relationship. We gave a friend a book to print according to the terms he gave expecting him to get us the books after five days as he had indicated. We then got into a very difficult situation because he was always promising to give us the books first one day then another. When we probed deeper we realized that he had not even started the initial steps yet he continued to be very convincing. Since he is a ‘brother’ I trusted his explanations until the time got to two and half weeks and the work was nowhere nearing completion and the author had already announced the launch and it was due. That was when we realized what had happened. The fellow used the deposit we had given him elsewhere and was now scraping around for the money to do the books. He confessed the same when we confronted him. We now have to dig deeper to get the work done in time, all because of a person who fears to offend. He has wasted over two weeks of several people’s lives because he feared to say that he did wrong yet the situation could have been rescued had he said that from the beginning.

Balaam now gets to get the great moment with the king. The only difference is that he now has no opportunity to disclose to the king the complete message from God. You see the reception is even better than red carpet. How does one slap such a reception with the unsavory second part of God’s message? That was simply impractical. Another opportunity had to be sought. He therefore resorts to trying to squeeze God’s message through, but then realizes that the expectation of the king is such that there is no allowance for the same. He is now boxed.

He then gets to play cat and mouse game with God, hoping against hope that God will save him from embarrassment, even danger by allowing him just a slight chance of cursing the uncursable even only to spare the prophet embarrassment from the king and his court. What appeared like a slight detour from God’s direction has now become a very big issue. But like I had said earlier God is not bound to our expectations. He therefore does not play the prophet’s ball.

The prophet now enrages the king almost to the point of being killed for doing the opposite of what he had been called to do. He may have been expelled from the kingdom, maybe even threatened with jail for refusing to curse the enemy. This makes the opportunity he had compromised so much to access become even more impossible than before. He not only has failed to impress the king but he had done the unimaginable, closed any door that could have opened at a later time. The opportunity he had sought for God to make a difference in Moab had achieved worse than the opposite, it had completely alienated the messenger.

A person who was brought by an escort is being ordered to flee, probably for his life. That was not something he even remotely considered. As a liability to the king, you can be sure that his life was in danger not only because he had no escort but even more because he had become an enemy of the state. It was therefore unimaginable that he attempts to take the journey home alone. Again compare this with Peter being confronted by a maiden. But he simply can’t stay in Moab. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. He simply ran out of options. Of course he can’t go to Israel because they knew what he had come to do. Now if that is not a difficult position we might just have to define what a difficult position is.

Another thing we have to consider is that one can not be able to conceal royal escort. Everybody all around knew that Balaam had not only been summoned by the king but the king had desperately sought his assistance. Were it today we would have almost all the media houses fixated by the news. ‘Obscure prophet on a special assignment with the king’, would run most papers. ‘The king in secret meeting with the renowned prophet’, would scream another. ‘Balaam hits it big with the king desperately seeking his assistance’, would be another headline.

With such publicity, there would definitely be the expectation that Balaam had really hit it big. Or who leaves a king’s presence empty handed? Leaving the kings presence without escort would make him open to all manner of attacks for the booty he was expected to have acquired. Robbers would certainly have started plotting how to access the riches he must have had gotten. Enemies of the king would also have schemed to punish him for going to assist the king. No explanation could have convinced people that he had not hit the jackpot, not with the king seeking personal audience with the prophet. Leaving Moab unescorted was therefore out of the question.

I believe it is under such pressure that he puts his experience as a prophet in good stead. Since God is a God with very high standards, any breach of the same automatically will open them to the judgment of God. I think this is what he must have explained the guys who were charged with ridding Moab of his presence. Of course this makes sense and they must have taken advantage of the information to bring the prophet in the presence of the king with the new revelation.

To cut the long story short he was able to gain prominence because of the counsel to the point that he became quite popular in Moab.

What about his initial vision of sharing God’s message to the king? Of course he was still looking for the opportunity to share it though it was becoming a greater impossibility with each passing day.

He died without sharing the gospel with the king, just because he feared to offend him with God’s complete message. Worse still he died the death of the ungodly from the judgment of God. The delay he thought will open a better opportunity to minister to Moab turned out to be his grave.

That is what fear to offend normally results in. Trying to be obtain favor using your own designs is the same thing. I have over the years wondered at the departure of ministers from the straight and narrow not through sinful lifestyles but comfortable sermons. It has disturbed me over the years that ministers who in the past were recognized for their spot on rebuking of sin in the camp seem most comfortable with abominations because they finally evolved into motivational speakers who must keep people thoroughly entertained and feeling good despite their spiritual or moral condition.

This reminds me of a story repeated over and over about an Arab and his camel. This guy had a small tent and owned a camel. One day the weather was very bad and the camel pleaded with the boss that due to the unfavorable weather could he at least allow him to get his head into the tent? The good man agreed. A short while later he pleaded for his neck and was allowed. Then the front legs and he succeeded. Finally he said, ‘it appears the tent is too small for both of us’, kicking the good guy out of his tent.

That is what will happen with compromise, which is what happened to Balaam.