SNITCHING BIRDS THAT CARRY PEOPLE’S VOICES & REVEAL SECRET PLANS (PART II)

“Biblical Miracles Are Not a License for Theological Invention”

By Akin Ojumu

In Part I, we examined Poju Oyemade’s claim that spoken plans can escape into the earth and the spirit realm. We probed his warning about a bird carrying someone’s voice. And we also scrutinized his attempts to support his teaching with passages from Isaiah, Psalms, and the Gospels.

As we established in the previous commentary, the issue was never with Poju Oyemade’s advice about the importance of exercising discretion in choosing whom to confide in. That is perfectly sound advice. The problem was the bizarre supernatural theory he grafted onto that commonsense counsel, when he attempted to legitimize it by dressing it up in biblical language and passing it off as divine revelation.

But something else happened when a clip of the sermon appeared on Instagram. It exposed an equally troubling confusion: the notion that because the Bible records miracles, Christians should be prepared to accept almost any supernatural claim made by a preacher.

THE INSTAGRAM EXCHANGE

When I encountered the clip of Poju Oyemade’s sermon on Instagram, I saw numerous approving comments. Troubled by the ease with which religious speculation was being mistaken for revelation, I joined the discussion.

Being the habitual theological hornet’s-nest disturber that I am, I wrote:

“This is paganism masquerading as Christianity. Neither the Lord Jesus Christ nor His Apostles taught anything remotely resembling this bizarre religious ideology.

“What Poju Oyemade has done is hijack the sacred text of Scripture, wrench biblical passages out of their proper context, mutilate their intended meaning, and conscript them into the service of an essentially pagan belief system.

“This is not biblical Christianity. It is pagan superstition dressed in Christian vocabulary, decorated with Bible verses, and peddled from the pulpit as divine revelation.

“Slapping Scripture onto pagan superstition does not transform paganism into Christianity. It merely makes the distortion more deceptive.”

Predictably, the defenders flared up. Some mocked. Others ridiculed. Very few addressed the central question: Does Scripture actually teach what Oyemade claimed?

One commenter, however, offered an argument that deserved attention. She wrote:

“Dey play 😂 if we use this your pattern plenty things in the bible sound like juju and paganism. Which one is it that they raised people from the dead again? You now turn water to wine as how? Should they even be drinking wine? You arose on the third day then flew into the sky and vanished, sounds like something a pagan or the greek god of speed and travel, Hermes would do plus many other pagan stories like baal et al.

“So yeah, many things in the bible sound like pagan practices too but as a Christian, we have different perspectives and see that as miracles. In a nutshell I’m not siding with you, just respectfully saying I don’t agree with your perspective.”

Ordinarily, I would have moved on and not responded to her comment. Arguing with every defender of a celebrity preacher is a magnificent way to squander a perfectly good afternoon.

But this argument revealed a more fundamental misunderstanding: the failure to distinguish supernatural works revealed by God in Scripture from supernatural explanations invented by men.

BIBLICAL MIRACLES ARE NOT BLANK CHECKS

The supernatural events recorded in Scripture occur within the unfolding history of God’s redemptive purposes. We must understand them according to the explanations Scripture gives, not turn them into precedents for whatever mystical speculation interests us.

That a miracle defies ordinary natural explanation is not the same thing as saying every extraordinary story deserves our belief. A miracle described by an inspired biblical author and a speculative claim advanced by a contemporary preacher do not stand on equal evidentiary footing. 

The question is not whether God can act supernaturally. Of course He can. The question is whether He has actually revealed the doctrine being asserted by the preacher.

When Jesus raised the dead, He demonstrated His divine authority over life and death. His mighty works bore witness to His identity and mission as the Son of God.

When His Apostles performed miracles, those works testified to their commission as witnesses of the risen Christ and heralds of His Gospel.

When Jesus turned water into wine at Cana, He was not illustrating the independent spiritual power of human speech. John tells us why the sign mattered: Christ manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

John 2:11

“This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.”

His crucifixion accomplished substitutionary atonement. His resurrection proclaimed His victory over sin and death. His ascension marked His exaltation to the right hand of the Father, where He reigns as the glorified Lord.

These were not demonstrations of universal spiritual techniques for believers to reproduce at will. They were decisive events in God’s plan of redemption.

So, NO! The fact that Scripture records miracles does not lend the slightest biblical legitimacy to an unsupported claim that:

“If you see an opportunity and you mention it…it escapes out of your lips into the earth…into the spirit realms…and you don’t act on it, somebody else will do that thing.”

Where did Jesus teach this type of doctrine? Where did His Apostles teach it? Where does Scripture establish the spiritual process being proposed?

NOWHERE!

Believing that God raised the dead does not validate a preacher’s speculative explanation of how private business ideas are supposedly transmitted in the air or in the spirit realms.

Faith in biblical miracles is not gullibility dressed in Church clothes.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXEGESIS AND RELIGIOUS IMAGINATION

Here is the problem with a method of preaching that has become distressingly fashionable.

A preacher begins with an anecdote. From the anecdote he invents a spiritual principle. Then he hunts through Scripture until he finds a verse containing words that sound remotely similar to his idea.

He removes the verse from its context, attaches a few mystical expressions, and announces that he has uncovered a deep revelation.

The congregation applauds. The video spreads. The preacher’s followers marvel at his insight. And yet another generation learns to confuse theological creativity with biblical interpretation.

The astonishing thing is that some believers will defend the preacher’s right to invent meaning more vigorously than they will defend the integrity of the biblical text. The more mysterious the assertion, the more profound they imagine the revelation must be. Meanwhile, the author’s actual argument disappears beneath layers of spiritual vocabulary.

But Scripture does not receive its meaning from the imagination of whoever happens to be holding the microphone.

Second Timothy 2:15 instructs the servant of God to handle the Word of Truth accurately:

2Timothy 2:15

“Make every effort to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed workman who accurately handles the word of truth.”

Accuracy in handling the Word of Truth requires paying careful attention to the inspired author’s words, grammar, historical circumstances, literary context, and theological purpose.

A passage may have several legitimate applications, but those applications must arise from its meaning. They cannot be imported from a preacher’s private theories and then imposed upon the text.

Isaiah’s condemnation of Israel’s spiritual blindness does not become a lesson in entrepreneurial timing merely because a preacher says so.

A psalm comparing prayer to incense does not establish an invisible altar system for securing business opportunities.

Jesus’ selective disclosure to His disciples does not prove that God’s plans can be thwarted by an indiscreet conversation.

And Ecclesiastes’ figurative bird does not become a supernatural intelligence officer simply because the preacher’s illustration requires one.

This is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis seeks to draw out what Scripture says. Eisegesis imports an idea into Scripture and then pretends the idea came from the text.

Second Peter 3:16 warns about those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. That warning ought to restrain anyone who claims to speak in God’s name.

Unfortunately, in much of celebrity-preacher Christianity, the more imaginative the interpretation, the deeper the supposed revelation. The more mysterious the language, the louder the applause.

Scripture is, however, not theological Play-Doh to be stretched, squeezed, and molded into whatever shape a religious entrepreneur desires.

Let me return to the commenter’s suggestion that we merely have different perspectives.

No. The disagreement is not fundamentally about the right to hold different opinions. It concerns whether the doctrine being proclaimed is found in Scripture.

One may reasonably believe that sharing a confidential business plan indiscriminately exposes it to exploitation. That is a proposition about human conduct, and experience provides ample evidence of it.

But when someone claims those words enter the spirit realm and associates that process with lost opportunities, an additional supernatural proposition has been introduced.

That proposition requires biblical support. A story about a dishonest acquaintance cannot supply it. A verse detached from its context cannot establish it. Nor can unrelated miracles recorded elsewhere in Scripture.

I believe Jesus raised the dead. I believe He turned water into wine. I believe He was crucified, rose bodily from the grave, and ascended into heaven. I believe these events occurred according to God’s sovereign purpose.

But believing what God has revealed in Scripture does not automatically compels me to endorse what a preacher has imagined.

The words altar, destiny, spirit realm, and revelation do not confer divine authority upon an assertion. Neither does a large congregation, a viral sermon clip, or a preacher’s ability to recite biblical passages with theatrical conviction.

The decisive question remains: Does Scripture, faithfully interpreted, actually teach the doctrine being proclaimed?

If it does, we must submit to it. If it does not, we are under no biblical obligation to believe it. And if an idea depends upon mystical speculation presented as God’s revelation, we must reject that claim no matter how celebrated the preacher may be.

The Bible is not obligated to agree with Poju Oyemade. Poju Oyemade is obligated to submit his teaching to the Bible.

So is every preacher. And so is every Christian who listens.

Attaching Bible verses to an invented spiritual theory does not transform the theory into divine revelation. It merely gives the error a Christian disguise.

And no amount of applause can change that. Not even when the birds are supposedly carrying the message.