Is God finished with the current prophetic movement?

Marko Joensuu         No comments
The flood of prophets trying to play the role of 'kingmakers' by endorsing or forecasting the next president is a result of misapplying the Old Testament stories about the prophets anointing kings. But it might also be a sign that God has forsaken our current prophetic movement.

Old Testament prophets as kingmakers

I have written about some of the Trump prophecies in the past, although they have greatly proliferated since, and also about the failed prophecies related to the 2012 elections. Although these 'prophecies' are linked to Republican candidates, it is not inconceivable that there could be 'prophecies' linked to Democratic candidates, only the largely white Charismatic movement is mainly voting for Republicans, hence any positive 'prophecies' tend to be for the candidates of the Republican Party. 

But this post is not about who Christians should be voting for, but about using 'prophecy' as a vehicle to encourage Christians to vote for a particular candidate.

The idea that modern-day prophets could declare the rulers of a nation comes primarily from biblical stories linked to the prophets Samuel, Elijah and Elisha, although there are many other prophets who declare the end of a king's power because of their wickedness.

The prophet Samuel anointed two of Israel’s kings—King Saul and King David. In 1 Samuel 10 he anoints Saul privately, and the prophetic proclamation of Saul's kingship was confirmed publicly by Samuel casting a lot in the presence of Israeli tribes.

After Samuel has rejected Saul's kingship, he anoints David in 1 Samuel 16—now in the presence of his brothers. It is unclear if the brothers or even David grasped that this anointing was for kingship, but it would have been clear that David had been separated for some specific purpose by God.

What gave Samuel the authority to anoint Saul and David? He was the last of the judges, and he managed the transfer of power from the institution of judges to the king.  Effectively, Samuel transferred the power that was in his possession to rule Israel to Saul and when Saul failed, he retransferred it to David.

What is remarkable about these two occasions is that they were no public affairs, but fairly private in nature. It is doubtful that we would have ever heard about them had Saul and David not become kings.

In 2 Kings 9 Elisha anoints Jehu to be the king of Israel. Again, this is a private affair and although people see the prophet visiting Jehu’s tent, not even Jehu's servant knows the reason. But as his servants insist to find out what had taken place, Jehu tells them that Elisha has anointed him to be the king.

And in 2 Kings 8 , Elisha ‘anoints’ Hazael to be the king of Syria. Elisha weeps whilst doing it, as he tells Hazael that “he will rip open” Israel’s “women with a child” as judgment to Israel.

Again, these anointings are distinctly private affairs. It seems that the Old Testament prophets cared very little about the publicity of the anointings—what was vital was that the 'anointed ones' knew that they had been called by God.

What is also clear with these anointings is that it was a righteous and a good man who was anointed to bring a blessing, whereas it was an evil man who was 'anointed' to bring judgment. So, the fact that a prophet 'anointed' anyone in the Old Testament wasn't automatically good news. But there was a certain level of inevitability about the consequences of these anointings—if someone was anointed for a task, they would fulfill that task, no matter what the great masses thought about them.

Often, the anointed men were initially rejected by the nation. In Saul's case, Israel initially rejected his leadership, and they only responded to it when he acted in a manner fit to be a leader. Also, in David's case, his way to kingship was a long story of rejection. But as these men began to act like great leaders, the nation began to respond to their leadership.

So, we can see how the nation responded to the actions of the man anointed to be the king, rather than to the act of anointing by the prophet.

What is displayed in these stories is the sovereignty of God who will choose whomever He chooses and will work according to His plan, overcoming any and every plan of man. 

How different are the ‘anointings’ by modern-day prophets! We are expected to respond to the act of anointing by a prophet with blind obedience, without seeing any action or evidence that the anointing should produce.

The modern-day anointings are mostly public declarations and as such part of the media circus. Their purpose is to encourage Christians to vote for a particular candidate, even when we have seen no evidence for the anointing. 

The modern-day anointings present God who is dependent on men's votes to be able to work out His plan, and rather than encouraging Christians to look at the actual track record of politicians, they seek to circumvent rational debate about the merits of different candidates with an argument that God has chosen someone. But this is abuse of prophetic authority.

The Old Testament prophets performed the anointing privately, trusting in God that the anointing by Him would produce the works of the anointing. 

In  the lives of Saul and David, the fruit of the anointing was evident. It was not taken 'by faith', against all evidence, at the word of a prophet.

Hence, any 'prophecies' that seek to influence the way you should vote, regardless of the candidates' actual track record, simply because God has 'chosen' someone to be the president, are simply attempts of political manipulation, and this has no place in God's Kingdom.

Anointing ‘Cyruses’

Some prophets have realised that the candidates they are supporting are not widely seen to have stood for righteousness in the past, hence they have been looking for a new source text, finding it in in Isaiah 45 where the prophet Isaiah calls Cyrus by name, even “though you have not known me.”

Isaiah lived two hundred years earlier than Cyrus, the King of Persia who, unlike the Assyrians and the Babylonians, respected the religions of the nations he conquered. What is remarkable is that Isaiah calls Cyrus by name two hundred years before his actual rule. Looking at the etymology of the name, it is possible that the prophet Isaiah understood that the deliverance of Israel would come from Persia, but perhaps not much more.

This 'Cyrus anointing' is based on the idea that a ‘prophet’ has been able to identify the ‘Cyrus’ of today, and is now asking for people to vote for that man or woman. 

Lance Wallnau, for example, writes

"Cyrus his anointed? But Cyrus was not even a Jew. He was a foreigner. An outsider. But God raises up secular Kings and Rulers for the sake of His people. This was Churchill and Lincoln and even Reagan. God wants to keep the gates of heaven open over certain nations - hence Cyrus will see 'gates that cannot keep closed.' The gates of Hell have plundered a lot of ground in America this past seven years. It's time that the gates of Hell were plundered and things were restored in certain places. Heaven's gates will open and Hell's gates will not be able to stay locked. 

Angels get involved with warfare to see the right person (even unbelievers) get into office. Gabriel told this to Daniel in Daniel 11:1 'In the first year of Darius the Mede, I arose to be an encouragement and a protection for him.' Darius and Cyrus were both rulers put into office by God for the sake of His people!

I told them my experience and asked them to consider standing behind Mr. Trump as he continues to step into the role of a rough reformer like Luther to take on the Political and establishment high places. He needs to continue his work as a divine wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness that has been like witchcraft muzzling and intimidating the Christian community. 

Mr. Trump is not as evangelical as the other candidates, but I've been with him twice. He fears God as best he knows Him and he is the only Cyrus I see fulfilling Isaiah 45 for the 45th President. 

There will be great warfare over this election and over this man in particular. A full tilt $100 million media campaign is about to be unleashed to slander him. I want to see the #Trumptrain on track with God's plan.  Will you join me in the warfare to establish a Cyrus in office for the sake of God's people and purposes?"

There is a striking difference between the way the Cyrus of Persia and the 'Cyruses' of today are taking power. Whereas the raising of Cyrus to deliver Israel was a sovereign act of God, and the prophecy was there to remind and affirm the Jews that their deliverance was from God and not from man, today, the raising of the Cyruses seems to be entirely dependent on man.

This is misapplying the Bible, and the connecting of the chapter 45 in Isaiah and the 45th President of the US makes mockery of any sound principles of Bible interpretation. 

Unfortunately, this kind of submitting the Bible text under the authority of the prophet, rather than the prophet submitting to the Word of God, is surprisingly common in the 'Bible-believing' churches, but in real terms, this isn't much better then reading the future from tea leaves. 

This is simply an illustration of the clear disrespect the contemporary prophetic movement has on the authority of the Bible. Rather than humbling themselves before the divinely inspired Word of God and studying it in holy fear, the prophets twist and shake it and take it out of context, until it gives them the interpretation they want it to have. 

But prophetic people don't have the freedom to interpret the Bible whichever way they choose, as by doing that they declare that they are a greater authority than the divinely inspired Word of God.

This is nothing else but manipulation of Christian voters. And saying that someone is a Cyrus and hence we should vote for him and make him one is simply a bad argument, as in the Bible, God chose Cyrus and made him a ruler and the deliverer of Israel without any intervention from the Jews. 

I believe that one of the main reasons for the prophetic movement losing its anointing, authority and accuracy is that it has such a low respect for the Bible, believing that prophets and anointed leaders can somehow stand above the clearly revealed Word of God, and interpret it whichever way they choose. And although the Bible has some scope for interpretation, it is not open to just any interpretation.

Anointing kings in the New Testament

What is remarkable about the New Testament is that there is not a single instance of a prophet anointing a political leader. This is because the focus has shifted from Israel to the Church. So, rather than anointing political leaders, the New Testament Church now anoints church leaders.

Fascinatingly, there is a remarkable disinterest in who has the political power in the New Testament, and it is only when Christians dispossess pagans from the ownership of the state power of the Roman Empire that an interest in Christians having political power and politcal theology to support it begins to take shape.  

Obviously,  the New Testament was written at the time when the Roman Empire became increasingly hostile against the Church, but nevertheless, it seems that the focus of the New Testament Christians was firmly on the Kingdom of God. 

It was only later when popes and archbishops began 'anointing' kings, as their nations became Christian at least in name. But in these situations, the Church often had very little to say, and they mostly only 'anointed' the inevitable political succession of kings. But as we can see, anointing kings has been the practice of a state church.

'Random' interpretation of Bible prophecies

As the New Testament is silent on the possibility of Christians having political power, the charismatic prophets have turned to the Old Testament for 'biblical' models of political power. So, they are looking for anything that could link the Bible to their particular 'prophetic'—but in reality, political—agenda. 

Unfortunately, there is very little in the Old Testament to link to the United States of America. So, the only option is to come up with 'prophetic' interpretations of the Bible text. But these interpretations rely heavily on the prophetic authority of the prophets, as they can't be inspected with any normal tools of Bible interpretation.

Hence, we should believe that Trump is a 'Cyrus' simply as a prophetic leader says so. 

How could anyone make a link between Isaiah 45 and the 45th President of the USA? There is simply no logical or reasonable connection. Equally, someone could make a claim that Isaiah 45 refers to the 45th Emperor of China, or the 45th Tsar of Russia. But making these links would seem absurd to even the most 'prophetically' inclined Bible interpreter, as the only reason why anyone can make a 'credible-looking' jump from Isaiah 45 to the 45th President of the USA is a widespread belief in America's manifest destiny—there is simply nothing in the Bible text to back it up. 

The manifest destiny is an idea that America is God’s chosen nation and that the white Americans were destined to populate North America from coast to coast.

It is the ideology of the manifest destiny that helps many American 'prophetic' Bible interpreters to 'discover' America in Bible prophecies, as they can't believe that America is not named in the Bible. Yet others, because they can't find America in the Bible prophecies, interpret this to mean that America will be destroyed before the End Times, or at least, lose its significance on the world stage.

But Jesus says in Matthew 24:7, "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom."

And He says in Matthew 24:14, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."

Like any other nation, America is lumped together with other nations in the Bible. Each nation has their own "manifest destiny" ideology, largely produced by the wave of nationalism in the 19th century. It is only one "chosen nation" the Bible chooses to focus on more extensively—Israel.  

It is my conviction that the prophetic movement needs to begin to take the holiness of the Word of God a lot more seriously than we are doing right now, if we want to be genuinely used by God. The simple truth is that prophets must use the same Bible interpretation tools than anyone else, as otherwise they are subjecting the Word of God to their own prophetic authority rather than letting their own ministry be subject to the Word of God.

But these 'random' interpretations of the Bible are never really truly random, but simply ways of looking for a 'proof text' for any theory a 'prophet' promotes at any given time.

Yes, the Bible texts can be interpreted prophetically, but the prophetic interpretation of the text must be consistent with the original purpose of the text and its message. 

Forgetting the poor track record

One of the main issues that is leading the current prophetic movement to ruin is that there is zero accountability and no reflection when any prophecies turn out to be wrong.

But if we want to be kingmakers, we should prophesy like the kingmakers. And it was said of Samuel, 

“So Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground.” (1 Samuel 3:19)

And this can’t simply be said of the ‘national prophets’ of the USA. If anyone ‘anoints’ anyone to be a president, they better become one! And if they don't, they should repent before the Living God they claim to represent, asking Him why they got it wrong, rather than blaming the nation and saying that the nation got it wrong.

But these prophets aren’t serious about their calling, as they will conveniently forget who they have ‘anointed’ in the past elections, and how their prediction went wrong.

When prophets’ words begin to fall to the ground regularly, that means that the Lord is no more backing up their words. And this is happening remarkably frequently nowadays.

Something is very wrong in the prophetic movement. We seem to be OK with 'national prophets' getting major words wrong regularly. It seems to bring prophets no sorrow when they get a word wrong–instead they swiftly produce another one.

I suggest that our hunger for political rather than spiritual power has deceived us and corrupted the gift of many prophets.

The prophetic movement needs repentance and reformation, so that it will return to the only power base that matters—our God.

You can connect with Marko on Twitter @markojoensuu and on Facebook at or by visiting
Published by Marko Joensuu

Marko Joensuu has worked for over sixteen years in the publishing and media ministries of Kensington Temple. He is an author, publisher and screenwriter.
Follow us Google+.




Popular Post


Powered by Blogger.