Problems? Email Us!
PROPHETS AND PROPHECY, by George Potkonyak.

This was posted on our old e-mail list, NETchurch, and the author gave permission for us to post on our website..
(some editing of 'small talk' done)

To:                   Multiple recipients of list NETchurch <>
Send reply to:
Date sent:        Sat, 03 Jul 1999 23:23:20 +1000
From:              George Potkonyak <>
Subject:           [NETchurch]:  Prophets and Prophecy

Dear All,

The issue of the prophets and prophecy has already been mentioned in some of the recent posts, mainly to deal with the method of delivery of the word by those who think that “the word of the Lord came to them”.  I would like to address several issues in light of what normally takes place in discussions on the prophetic ministry.  These can be sorted as:

1. True and false prophet
2. Old Testament prophet and “New Testament prophet”
3. Submission of a prophet

1. True and False Prophet

Deuteronomy 13

[1] `When there ariseth in your midst a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he hath given unto thee a sign or wonder,

[2] and the sign and the wonder hath come which he hath spoken of unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods (which thou hast not known), and serve them,

[3] thou dost not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of the dream, for Jehovah your God is trying you, to know whether ye are loving Jehovah your God with all your heart, and with all your soul;

[4] after Jehovah your God ye walk, and Him ye fear, and His commands ye keep, and to His voice ye hearken, and Him ye serve, and to Him ye cleave.

[5] `And that prophet, or that dreamer of the dream, is put to death, for he hath spoken apostacy against Jehovah your God (who is bringing you out of the land of Egypt, and hath ransomed you out of a house of servants), to drive you out of the way in which Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee to walk, and thou hast put away the evil thing from thy midst.

Deuteronomy 18

[20] `Only, the prophet who presumeth to speak a word in My name -- that which I have not commanded him to speak -- and who speaketh in the name of other gods -- even that prophet hath died.

Definition of a false prophet comes from God Himself.  There is no indication that there is a time limit to its validity, therefore, it is quite safe to assume that the definition still stands.

A false prophet is the one who tries to lead people to gods other than Jehovah, whether he speaks in the name of other gods or he pretends as if speaking in the name of the Lord.  If he does this, he is a false prophet, even if he performs signs and wonders as a supposed proof that the prophecy is from God.  The penalty pronounced by God for the false prophet is death.

This leads me to conclude that one of the qualifications of a true prophet is that he will not try to lead people to other gods.  That is one qualification only - we’ll be looking for some more.

Deuteronomy 18

[21] `And when thou sayest in thy heart, How do we know the word which Jehovah hath not spoken?

[22] that which the prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, and the thing is not, and cometh not -- it [is] the word which Jehovah hath not spoken; in presumption hath the prophet spoken it; -- thou art not afraid of him.

Here is some more: if a prophet speaks “in the name of Jehovah”, that is, if he has the best intentions, but he actually doesn’t speak what God has given him, but rather what he THINKS is good (or shall we say “edifying”), then that prophet is not a true prophet because “the thing is not and cometh not”, but he is not a false prophet either.  He just spoke “in presumption”, and there is no need to stone him (he had good intentions), neither he should be listened to, no matter how good he might sound.  The ‘penalty’ for such a prophet is “thou art not afraid of him”.  This may mean “ignore him”, but it also may mean not to be literally afraid, which will become clearer later on when we look at some examples.

So, another qualification of a true prophet is that he does not speak “presumtuously”, that is, his own word rather than the word of God, even though it may be with best intentions.

The qualification of a “presumptuous” prophet is that “the thing is not and cometh not”, may not necessarily apply to every prophecy by a prophet: some of the prophecies, even given by some “prophets of old”, are for a distant future - a prophet cannot be judged by their fulfullment in a limited time.

Many of the examples mentioned in the previous posts about ‘prophecying’ with “thus says the Lord” and in King James English, probably fall into this category of prophecies: they are spoken “presumptuously”, that is, those who spoke them are not false prophets, but are not true either - unless “the thing is, and cometh”.

Deuteronomy 18

[18] a prophet I raise up to them, out of the midst of their brethren, like to thee; and I have given my words in his mouth, and he hath spoken unto them all that which I command him;

[19] and it hath been -- the man who doth not hearken unto My words which he doth speak in My name, I require [it] of him.

Some commentators claim that God spoke here about Jesus.  It is quite possible, but I would think that the Lord spoke about a true prophet, the one who speaks in the name of the Lord; and those to whom the word is given are expected to “hearken”, that is, to hear and respond accordingly, otherwise the Lord will “require [it] of him”, that is, the person who ignores the words of the prophet will be accountable to God for it.

So, we can add another attribute to the definition of the true prophet: his words are not to be ignored by those to whom they are spoken, otherwise God Himself will hold them responsible.

1 Kings 20

[35] And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour by the word of Jehovah, `Smite me, I pray thee;' and the man refuseth to smite him,

[36] and he saith to him, `Because that thou hast not hearkened to the voice of Jehovah, lo, thou art going from me, and the lion hath smitten thee;' and he goeth from him, and the lion findeth him, and smiteth him.

Please note:  “man of the sons of the prophets”, that is a prophet, spoke to a man “by the word of Jehovah”, and this man ignored him.  He ignored the word of the Lord spoken by a true prophet.  And the Lord “required it of him”.  It wasn’t just a slap on the wrist - you can read in verse 36 how He did it.

2 Kings 1

[9] And he sendeth unto him [to Elijah] a head of fifty and his fifty, and he goeth up unto him (and lo, he is sitting on the top of the hill), and he speaketh unto him, `O man of God, the king hath spoken, Come down.'

[10] And Elijah answereth and speaketh unto the head of the fifty, `And if I [am] a man of God, fire doth come down from the heavens, and consume thee and thy fifty;' and fire cometh down from the heavens, and consumeth him and his fifty.

Now we can see what could have been the meaning of “thou art not afraid of him” (Deu. 18:22), which in the opposite would mean, if a person is a true prophet, be afraid of him/her.

2 Kings 2

[23] And he [Elisha] goeth up thence to Beth-El, and he is going up in the way, and little youths have come out from the city, and scoff at him, and say to him, `Go up, bald-head! go up, bald-head!'

[24] And he looketh behind him, and seeth them, and declareth them vile in the name of Jehovah, and two bears come out of the forest, and rend of them forty and two lads.

“...and he [Elisha, the true prophet] declareth them vile in the name of Jehovah...”

Another attribute of a true prophet:  God responds to his requests as the prophet responds to the word of God - I would think this to be proportional.

It would be interesting to see what happens to a prophet who does not respond to the word of God, but rather listens to a man, even to another prophet.

In 1 Kings 13:1-24 is a story of a true prophet of God who received a certain instruction from God, and eventually ignored it but rather listened to another (aparently true) older prophet.  As a consequence he got killed by a lion.

When you know that you know that the Lord has spoken to you, my fellow prophet, do not listen even to your own father, and the Lord will forgive you.  However, if you let yourself be persuaded and do something contrary to what the Lord has commanded you, be ready for the consequences.

I’d like to draw your attention to a practice in the church, which is (supposedly) designed as a ‘safety net’, so that ‘false’ prophecies are filtered out and the ‘true’ ones passed.  It is the rule which many churches introduced: submit your prophecy to the church leadership (whatever that is in each particular setting), and they will compile and monitor prophecies and try to correlate them and get some sort of ‘statistics’ to see how the prophecies line up with each other.  Then the leaders would publish the ‘consensus of the prophetic opinion’ and treat it as God’s guide to the church.

There are examples from the Scripture which are too numerous to list here, from which it is quite obvious that often the contrary was true: prophecies of a single individual were true and those of a majority of the prophets (and most of them were not even mentioned as being false prophets), were wrong.  So, here is another attribute of a true prophet:  he/she does not have to be one of the majority - he/she can be a lonly voice among the multitude.


2. The Old Testament Prophet and the "New Testament Prophet"

There is quite a lot of teaching on the prophets and the prophecy in the contemporary church.  Mostly, these are the main points of this teaching:

- Prophecy must be supported by the Scripture.
- NT prophecy is not directional, and if it happens to be, must be confirmed by some 'authority'.
- The New Testament prophet is different to the OT prophet.
- The NT prophecy must be edifying and spoken in love, and it does not tear down but rather builds up.  If a 'tearing down' word is given, by any chance, it must be accompanied by a 're-building' word.

In other words, there is a 'pattern' which must be followed.  As it already has been said on this list, by Chip and others, the only pattern I know of is that we follow the Holy Spirit's guidance.  Or, as Jesus did: do only what we see the Father doing, and speak only what we hear the Father speaking.

Let's see some of the New Testament examples, leaving Gospels out of it because most of the actions in them were before the New Covenant became effective.

One of the most significant prophecies in the early church was given to Simon Peter in a vision while he was in Joppa (Acts 10).  As you know, the Lord showed him that he should go to a Gentile's house and proclaim the gospel.  Apparently, at the time this was not considered to be 'scriptural', however, since the Lord gave Peter a sign - the Lord confirmed that he should go with those sent to him - he went.  Only later on, at the meeting of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, James actually quoted a scripture which confirmed that the salvation was for the Gentiles also, and a vision was accepted as true.  So, as in the Old Testament, the vision was confirmed by a sign, even though at the time it was considered 'scripturally' a little bit dubious.

Acts 13

[1] And there were certain in Antioch, in the assembly there, prophets and teachers...
[2] and in their ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, `Separate ye to me both Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them,'
[3] then having fasted, and having prayed, and having laid the hands on them, they sent [them] away.

In the above example, the word of the Lord came through (at least) one of the men gathered, and they acted on it!  No elaborate examinations and dissecting of the word.  Likewise, in the example bellow, they "immediately endeavoured" to act on the word.

Acts 16

[9] And a vision through the night appeared to Paul -- a certain man of Macedonia was standing, calling upon him, and saying, `Having passed through to Macedonia, help us;' --
[10] and when he saw the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go forth to Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord hath called us to preach good news to them...

From the two visions quoted above it is clear that the visions were taken seriously and also those to whom the prophecy was directed - an it was directional - they acted on them, as it was normally practiced in the Old Testament.

Another New Testament prophecy:

Acts 21

[10] And we remaining many more days, there came down a certain one from Judea, a prophet, by name Agabus,
[11] and he having come unto us, and having taken up the girdle of Paul, having bound also his own hands and feet, said, `Thus saith the Holy Spirit, The man whose is this girdle -- so shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind, and they shall deliver [him] up to the hands of nations.'
[12] And when we heard these things, we called upon [him] -- both we, and those of that place -- not to go up to Jerusalem,
[13] and Paul answered, `What do ye -- weeping, and crushing mine heart? for I, not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem, am ready, for the name of the Lord Jesus;'
[14] and he not being persuaded, we were silent, saying, `The will of the Lord be done.'

Do you notice what Agabus has spoken?  I wouldn't call his prophecy to be edifying (in today's parlance): he said that a man, whom the whole church loved, will be bound and delivered to the Gentiles - period.  Agabus hasn't polished his word, neither he delayed it till he gets a 'rebuilding' word so he can speak a 'complete' message, so that it sounds along the lines of the 'New Testament prophecy'.  To me, this prophecy sounds as good and as genuine as any Old Testament prophecy.  Do you also notice that everybody believed the word without question?  They urged Paul not to go to Jerusalem, but he ignored their pleas, not that he didn't believe the prophecy, but he didn't care even if he had to die for the sake of Gospel.  He didn't disobey the word either, for the prophecy was not an instruction to Paul not to go to Jerusalem.  As it turned out, Paul's arrest and the subsequent trip to Rome proved to be a monumental event in the history of Christianity.  But, at the time of prophecy that was not evident; it took decades, even centuries before it became obvious.

Acts 13

[7] ...proconsul Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man; this one having called for Barnabas and Saul, did desire to hear the word of God,
[8] and there withstood them Elymas the magian -- for so is his name interpreted -- seeking to pervert the proconsul from the faith.
[9] And Saul -- who also [is] Paul -- having been filled with the Holy Spirit, and having looked steadfastly on him,
[10] said, `O full of all guile, and all profligacy, son of a devil, enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease perverting the right ways of the Lord?
[11] and now, lo, a hand of the Lord [is] upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season;' and presently there fell upon him a mist and darkness, and he, going about, was seeking some to lead [him] by the hand;

Can anyone see a striking similarity between what Paul did and what some of the Old Testament prophets did?  To pronounce a judgment over a man and strike him blind, hardly sounds 'edifying'.  Do you think that Paul struck this guy blind with his own power?  No!  God did it.  He responded to a judgment pronounced by a man of God.  Why?  Because He always did it - if it was His will: under the Law or under the Grace (as you can see), makes no difference.

Acts 5

[9] And Peter said unto her [Sapphira], `How was it agreed by you, to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? lo, the feet of those who did bury thy husband [are] at the door, and they shall carry thee forth;'
[10] and she fell down presently at his feet, and expired, and the young men having come in, found her dead, and having carried forth, they buried [her] by her husband;

Would you prophesy over somebody that he/she will "expire" and call it 'edifying' and being spoken in love?  I know, we can philosophy about it till we turn blue, however, I see no difference between what a New Testament "man of God" (Peter) did and what an Old Testament "man of God" (for example Elijah or Elisha) did. No difference whatsoever!!!
And what was the result?  Read verse 11:

"and great fear came upon all the assembly, and upon all who heard these things."

Here is another reference: the whole book of Revelations.

And here is my challenge: read the judgment pronounced by the New Testament "man of God" (prophet) and check whether he is different to the Old Testament "man of God" - try to add to or take away from the scroll of his prophecy.  I would
suggest you "put your house in order", before you do it!

Revelation 22

[18] `For I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecy of this scroll, if any one may add unto these, God shall add to him the plagues that have been written in this scroll,
[19] and if any one may take away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the scroll of the life, and out of the holy city, and the things that have been written in this scroll;'

Now let's see where is it that it says that the (New Testament) prophecy has to be edifying.

1 Corinthians 14 (YLT) [1] Pursue the love, and seek earnestly the spiritual things, and rather that ye may prophecy... [3] and he who is prophesying to men doth speak edification, and exhortation, and comfort; [4] ... he who is prophesying, an assembly doth edify;

1 Corinthians 14 (KJV) [1] Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy... [3] But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. [4] ... but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

1 Corinthians 14 (NIV) [1] Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy... [3] But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. [4] ... but he who prophesies edifies the church.

1 Corinthians 14 (Darby) [1] Follow after love, and be emulous of spiritual [manifestations], but rather that ye may prophesy... [3] But he that prophesies speaks to men [in] edification, and encouragement, and consolation. [4] ... but he that prophesies edifies [the] assembly.

No matter which translation you read, it sounds the same: He who prophecies edifies the church.  In other words: prophecy edifies.

Does it say that he who prophesies SHOULD (must, have to) speak edification?  No, it does not.  It says that the prophecy ALWAYS edifies.  Why?  The reason is simple: it is the word of God, which can do nothing but to edify, that is to build up.  No matter how it sounds to the naked ear.

So, when the word of God comes to a prophet, which does not sound 'edifying', what is he going to do with it?  Is he going to dismiss it if he considers that it is not edifying?  Or is he going to ask others of what they think?  Or should he submit it to some 'authority'?

I see no instruction whatsoever except the one in 1 Corinthians 14:

[29] And prophets -- let two or three speak, and let the others discern,
[30] and if to another sitting [anything] may be revealed, let the first be silent;
[31] for ye are able, one by one, all to prophesy, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted,
[32] and the spiritual gift of prophets to prophets are subject,

In other words, the instruction is: If you get a word (vision, dream) from the Lord, speak it out and let the other (those to whom or in front of whom it is spoken) judge, or discern.  Who are those "others"?  Whomever it may concern...

And the above instructions are not Paul's opinion, but rather commandments of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 14

[37] if any one doth think to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge the things that I write to you -- that of the Lord they are commands;

and also...

[38] and if any one is ignorant -- let him be ignorant;


3. Submission of a prophet

Dear All,

You have blessed me with your comments, and have encouraged me to add to what I have already written in my second installment.

In order not get in trouble with the fellow prophetesses, this time I’ll use feminine gender instead of usual male gender.

OK. If a prophet, or the one who thinks that she is (called to be) a prophet gets a word, what is she to do with it? I can find no scripture anywhere in the whole Bible which says that the word should be submitted to any single authority for any kind of filtering, which I call censorship. The prophet should speak it to the audience she believes God intended it for: an individual, a group, a local church, the church, a nation, the world...

1 Corinthians 14 [29] And prophets -- let two or three speak, and let the others discern,

And let whom discern? The ‘OTHERS’ (To whomever it may concern).

1 Corinthians 14 [32] and the spiritual gift of prophets to prophets are subject...

Who is subject to whom? The gift is subject to the PROPHET, not to anybody else, not even to the prophet’s ‘boss’ (whoever thinks that he/she is).  And also, it is the GIFT that is subject to the prophet, not the GIVER; The Giver is subject to no (wo)man. So, what does this mean? Firstly, the Giver gives what HE wants to give, not what the recipient wants to get. So, once it’s given to the recipient, she is in control of what to do with it: to accept it or to reject it.

I would go here a step further: when it comes to an individual prophecy, it is the Giver Who chooses what to give, and it becomes subject to the recipient, the prophet. Now, she can do with the word whatever she wants: reject it, speak it as it comes, or modify it and then speak it. I don’t know about you, but I know what would be my choice.

What then happens when the prophet receives a word which she thinks is not an edifying word? Then she must think that she is not a (true) prophet, for a (true) prophecy DOES edify. Or does she modify the word, thus correcting God? If the one who gave her the word needs correction, I doubt if it is God. In either case, she better ‘hang her mouth on the hook’ and retire as a prophet.

Here is the ‘curly’ one: what happens if a prophet receives the word and BELIEVES that it is from God, but THINKS that other(s) will not take it as an edifying word? Should she speak it or not?

What I have said, and I am not sure I was understood, is this: It appears that we are under impression that if a prophet who receives the word thinks, that any of those to whom the word is intended, or any of those who are in authority (or in ‘authority’), or even any ‘bystanders’ might think that the word might offend somebody, the prophet should not consider speaking it either at all or without putting it through some kind of ‘filter’. This precaution is supposedly to ‘protect’ people because there was so much ‘harm’ done by ‘false’ prophets and ‘false’ prophecies.

Has anyone EVER considered how much harm could be done to the prophet AND to those to whom the word is intended if the word is withheld or tempered with in any way (even to make it sound more ‘edifying’)?

Here are a couple of my personal examples. I had a vision in which the Lord referred to me as a ‘Proud Cow’... ):->. The vision happened a few years back, but not that long ago, it was actually during the ‘dispensation of grace’, so the God who spoke to me is the same God who is supposed to behave and speak differently than He did in the ancient times. So, His message to me was (to put it in a third person language and to put it into a ‘standard’ format): ‘George, thus says the Lord, you are a proud cow’. As I was praying, I sort off, shrugged off His remark (didn’t think He was ‘serious’) and continued, “Now, Lord, about the other business...”.  He interrupted me and said. “There is no other business tonight.”  Then I understood that He was serious, and I understood what He was talking about. The result? I WAS EDIFIED!

Now imagine that after seeing the ‘proud cow’ vision the Lord spoke to me and told me that the cow was one of you guys on this list (God forbid!). The same God, the same prophet, the same word, but a different recipient. Should the prophet run a psychological test on the recipient in order to format the word of God ‘correctly’ so that it will be ‘edifying’ to the recipient? Or should she (the prophet) consult with somebody else, or anybody at all, and if so, with whom and why?

It appears we are under impression that God has these words for individuals, groups or nations, He throws them down at us at random, and watches to whom they will fall, hoping that the word, the prophet and the recipient will be ‘in sync’, that is, match with each other ‘correctly’. Doesn’t God know what is He doing? I bet He does! He even knows if we are going to ‘stuff it up’, yet He allows it. Why? The answer is: FOR OUR EDIFICATION! When I say ‘our’ I have everybody in mind: the prophet, the recipient, the bystander, even the ‘authority’.

1 Corinthians 14 (KJV) [1] Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy... [3] But he that prophesieth SPEAKETH UNTO MEN TO EDIFICATION, and exhortation, and comfort. [4] ... but he that prophesieth EDIFIETH THE CHURCH. [emphases mine]

We have put the cause and effect back-to-front. What we say is that if one speaks what WE consider to be edifying, then it must be the word of God, that is a true prophecy. BUT, if somebody prophesies and if WE (whoever those ‘we’ may be) think that it does not edify, it is not the true prophecy.

Another example. Back in 1991, when I received the word about the revival in Australia, and some guys mocked, the Lord spoke to me and said, ‘I am going to give them a sign: there will be three earthquakes in Australia within a short period of time’. (I understood it was within two months). So, what I was to do? I could have reasoned something like this: ‘If I tell them this, some people might take it seriously and decide to camp out with their families till the earthquakes are over. It may cause them untold inconvenience, those living in the North might even end up getting eaten by crocodiles’. Don’t you think that God knew EXACTLY what would be reactions of each one who heard the word? And even if any WOULD get eaten by crocodiles, it was God’s intention anyway, since He knew the consequences. So, who was I to stand in God’s way?

So, I spoke the word. And guess what? I was mocked! One of them even teased me that he was going to wear his crash helmet when inside a building. And guess what else? Three earthquakes DID take place as prophesied! And guess what else, else? I WAS EDIFIED! and some of the guys sat up and started listening to what the ‘babbler’ (I) had to say. Mind you, most of them where ‘dispense...’ or whatever you call them (they didn’t believe that the gifts of the Spirit are for us today). So, THEY GOT EDIFIED! (or at least educated). At the same time I learned how to receive mocking. Had I asked for a counsel of any of them (for I didn’t know anybody at the time who prophesied), I would have been told to shut up. In which case I would have committed a sin, a grievous sin: I would have quenched the Holy Spirit, and the scripture EXPLICITLY says ‘Do not quench the Holy Spirit’!

Here is another question: Has anyone EVER thought how much harm is done to people by false teaching in the church? I would bet my bottom dollar, much more, actually by the order of magnitude, than by ‘false’ prophets and ‘false’ prophecies. Yet, NOBODY is considering to get the teachers (‘pastors’ as we know them) to pass their every ‘sermon’ by an individual, or whomever, to check whether it is ‘edifying’ or not. WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE? Yet the Bible (as Paul puts it, the Holy Spirit) speaks EXPLICITLY that we will have false teachers. And you and I know that we have them.

Yet another question: In many churches believers are urged to speak in tongues in the assembly.  Has anyone EVER asked any of those tongue speakers to submit their ‘utterance’ for a check to see if it is ‘edifying’, before they are allowed to deliver it?  If not, why not?  It is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as the prophecy is, as the teaching is, as the healing is, as the word of knowledge is, as the word of wisdom is as the...  Yet, it appears that the prophecy and the prophets are the only ones, in most if not all churches, that are required to submit their ‘utterance’ for ‘approval’ (censorship) before they can deliver it.

Some more on the prophecy being for building up, not for tearing down. We are talking about a prophecy by a prophet who receives it from God. Now, if God has spoken a word that seems to be ‘tearing down’ and has 'forgotten' to add a word of re-building, I wouldn't dare to add it myself. I would, perhaps occasionally, try to 'remind' Him, but I wouldn't dare to add to it. It would be a presumptuous speech, not the one from God, and the Scripture said 'do not be afraid' of such a prophet, in other words, ignore him.

Now, if God has called me to be His 'mouth', I wouldn’t even contemplate in my right mind to use it for my own advantage, promotion, or whatever, by trying to please men by telling them, 'on behalf of God' what THEY want to hear. It is not to say that I (or anyone else) am in right mind all the time, not to speak about mistakes, especially in the early days 'under training'; which means 'until the perfect comes', which means till we live (we are always under training!).

As for the prophecy having to be spoken 'in love': I have no love! Unless He equips me for some - and it is HIS 'job' - I am not able to have one. I can pretend. All of us can, and we all do, at least occasionally. If God gives a word, He DOES give it in love, because He is not capable of giving it in hate (this is not to say that God has limitations).

In summary: IF God gives a word, it IS edifying. Whether we like it or not, it makes no difference.

So, what shall we do? If the word of the Lord comes to a prophet, without any other instructions, it is meant to be spoken to the intended audience(s). If God is capable of giving the message, He is capable of giving the instruction on how to use it. If the prophet is capable of hearing the message, he is capable of hearing the instruction. If it is supposed to be submitted to some ‘authority’ for an approval, why God wouldn’t go directly to that ‘authority’?  If that ‘authority’ is capable of judging if the word is from God, that ‘authority’ must be able to hear from God.  So, why all that ‘red tape’?

Having said all this, it is not to say that a (young, and we are always young) prophet should not pass it by the ears of a fellow prophet. However it is up to the prophet, and I would not even suggest to pass it by the ears of someone whom we know is not a prophet, especially if we know that the word might be 'intruding' into some areas of other’s 'authority'.

I am also not saying that if someone gets a word she should jump up, interrupt the meeting and start prophesying - like those “thus says the Lord: oh my people I love you...”.  Whoever is conducting a meeting, we should show respect and courtesy to that person, even though if he/she is one of those whom we do not consider to have any spiritual authority.  We should ask politely for a permission to speak, and when it is given, speak. If we are not allowed, and it is made clear, we should not get upset: the one who refused permission will be responsible for it (whether he had a true authority or some self-appointed authority).  The Lord will find the way to deliver the message to whom if was intended in the first place.

Don’t I occasionally get a bit longwinded?

Some of you ladies who feel that you are called into some kind of ministry:  prophetic, teaching, apostolic... whatever, might often feel unsecure because “women are not permitted to speak in the assembly or to have an authority...” (or something like that).  Don’t despair!  I have “rightly divided the word of God”, and have proven by the Scripture, that it is not as it sounds.  I’ll post it one day - if all the men on this list agree....

Bless you all,



About the author of this article above:

George Potkonyak is an ex-communist who is now even more radically devoted to Christ than he was to communism. Hosanna Ministries is George's publishing name under which he published his booklet "Tithing Conspiracy" - the first edition of this teaching. We posted his "Truth Of Tithing" 11th edition until he had his own website:  Capellia house church. He now has his Twelth Edition of Truth of Tithing there.

To HarvestNET's Prophet 'Un'School page
This page has been loaded   times since 07/25/1999, and was last modified: .

JavaScript Menu, DHTML Menu Powered By Milonic