In his book, Surprised by the Voice of God, Jack Deere presents an important point: do not forget about the work of the Holy Spirit. Because many Christian churches and educational institutions decide to not be “charismatic” or “Pentecostal” and in the process neglect the work of the Holy Spirit,[1] Deere’s book is an attempt to reignite recognition of the work and activity of the Holy Spirit. Deere believes that evangelicals need to “hear the voice of God.” However, some people might disagree with Deere, stating that he provides too “charismatic” of an approach to Scripture or that he presents a model he believes everyone should follow. Thus, a close evangelical examination of Deere’s book is needed.
I. PROPHETS TODAY?
First, a look at what Deere means by “voice of God” and of “revelation” is needed. Deere defines revelation as “a secret God has made known. When God ‘reveals’ something, he is showing us something we could not know, or did not know, through natural means.”[2] Deere’s definition of revelation should be under the category of “special revelation” which “refers to God’s acts and objects of disclosure which are limited in space and time and are directed to various designated individuals.”[3] Why would Deere define revelation this way? Deere claims that the book of Acts is a model for what the life of a Christian should look like. The way the early apostles experienced the Holy Spirit in the first century church should be the same way that modern day Christians experience the Holy Spirit. According to Deere, modern Christians should regularly hear the revelatory “voice of God” in visions, dreams, words of knowledge, and miracles.[4] This view of revelation correlates closely to Avery Dulles’ model of Revelation as Inner Experience where he writes, “Revelation . . . comes directly to every individual.”[5] Deere emphasizes that because of the Holy Spirit, the “voice of God” is meant to be enjoyed and heard by all Christians who are willing to listen to His voice.[6] Taking this point further, Deere believes that the Holy Spirit started an “age of revelation” in which many people would be prophets.[7] This is contrary to the formal “office of the prophet” in the Old Testament where only a few people would be considered prophets.[8] Based on this Deere claims (and evangelicals might assume) that modern prophets are present and active in the world today. Furthermore, this writer contends that a prophet operating in today’s world must adhere to the same criteria discussed in both the Old and New Testaments.
II. DEERE’S ALTERATION OF THE TERM “PROPHET”
Deere makes a subtle but significant alteration to the criteria that defines what a “prophet” is. This small alteration is important to note because it is how he defines and attempts to justify his belief of modern day prophets. As many as four times (if not more), Deere states that a prophet in modern times should be evaluated by the fruit of his ministry, not his accuracy.[9] Here are a few examples of Deere’s claim: “Some people think one missed or failed prediction makes a person a false prophet. The Bible, though, doesn’t call someone a false prophet for simply missing a prediction. In the Scripture, false prophets are those who contradict the teaching and predictions of true prophets and attempt to lead people away from God and his Word.”[10] Deere affirms that “people frequently say that the major text of a prophet is whether or not his predictions come true” however Deere says he doesn’t “think this is necessarily the best test.”[11] Further clarifying his belief Deere explains, “I am not saying fulfillment is not a test of prophetic words. I am simply saying that is not necessarily the best test of whether or not the Lord has spoken these words.”[12]
In Deere’s argument, he points to Matthew 7:16, 18 as a text that shows in an authoritative way (as if Jesus’ words are more authoritative than other inspired Scripture) that the true measure of a prophet is his fruit. Here is the section Matt. 7:16, 18 is found in, quoted in whole in order to preserve accuracy.
“Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, you can identify people by their actions” (Matt. 7:15-20).
Based on this verse, Deere claims that the best way to evaluate a prophet or someone who has God’s word revealed to him on a regular basis is if he produces good fruit.[13] Fruit, according to Deere is any good effect among the believing community such as love, joy, peace, or patience.[14] However, there are important elements to look at related to Deere’s claim that you measure whether or not someone is a prophet because he or she is bearing good fruit.
III. THE OLD TESTAMENT VERSION OF A PROPHET
In order to accurately understand what the Old Testament biblical text says about prophets and to see what doctrine of the office of a prophet Deere is rejecting, an examination is needed. The reader with a biblical background and Christian theology might question Deere basing his belief off of one verse. In the book of Deuteronomy Moses provides a long discourse to the nation of Israel. Within this discourse is a description of a prophet and how the people will be able to judge whether someone is a true or false prophet. God declares through Moses declares, “If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the LORD did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared” (Deut. 18:22). Moses is telling the nation of Israel that the main way (and the only way) they are to tell whether future prophets are true or false is whether or not their predictions come true. Jeremiah, like Moses, also receives a similar word from God about the office of the prophet. God speaks through Jeremiah, “So a prophet who predicts peace must show he is right. Only when his predictions come true can we know that he is really from the LORD” (Jer. 28:9). Jeremiah continues Moses’ theme that you know if a prophet is a true prophet because his predictions come true by sharing the story of his cousin, Hanamel. Jeremiah shares,
“At that time, the LORD sent me a message. He said, ‘Your cousin Hanamel son of Shallum will come and say to you, “Buy my field at Anathoth. By law you have the right to buy it before it is offered to anyone else.”’ Then, just as the LORD had said he would, my cousin Hanamel came and visited me in the prison. He said, ‘Please buy my field at Anathoth in the land of Benjamin. By law you have the right to buy it before it is offered to anyone else, so buy it for yourself.’ Then I knew that the message I had heard was from the LORD” (Jer. 32:6-8).
The Old Testament clearly shows that the test of a prophet is whether or not his prophesies come true. This was declared by Moses in the Torah and affirmed and exampled by Jeremiah. Deere’s belief that a prophet is measured by the fruit of his prophesies and not by whether or not the prophesies come true clearly disagrees with the Old Testament Torah.
IV. FOUR REASONS TO RECONSIDER DEERE’S DEFINITION OF A PROPHET
There are four reasons that a biblically minded reader should examine Deere’s view of what a prophet is and how a prophet is distinguished. The first reason relates to the context of Jesus’ teaching from which Deere’ quotes his argument. Jesus never changed Scripture, He only elevated the Old Testament laws. An example of this is Matthew 7 which is part of Jesus’ well-known “Sermon on the Mount,” a long discourse to listeners in the area.[15] As already stated, Deere claims that Jesus’ statements in Matthew 7:16, 18 nullify the teaching in Deuteronomy 18. However, when reading Jesus’ words it is important to note that Jesus himself says in Matthew 5:17, “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses [of which is Deuteronomy 18] or the writings of the prophets [of which is Jeremiah]. No, I came to accomplish either purpose.”[16] With this statement Jesus is prefacing his Sermon on the Mount by saying that he came to fulfill what was written, not to get rid of it. In other words, Jesus is not delivering a new law, He is the Messianic interpreter showing the real intent of God’s Torah.[17] By his own words, Jesus is telling his readers that his teaching is supposed to reveal the true meaning of God’s word, not to change or nullify what has already been said.
The second reason to examine Deere’s belief in a prophet’s measurement by the fruit of his work is based on the idea that Matthew 7 seems to be dealing with how someone identifies people based on actions. This small passage is not exclusively teaching a new definition of how you judge whether someone is a true or false prophet. The passage emphasizes how to identify people and their character based on their actions. It is possible that the term prophet here is merely used as an example or illustration by Jesus. The possibility of this passage being about how to measure people based on their actions is also shown in how Jesus closes His section of teaching on this topic with the statement, “Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions” (Matt. 7:20). If this teaching was focused on how to judge a prophet it is plausible to expect Jesus to complete his section of teaching with the term prophet; however prophet is not used in Jesus’ summarization.
The third reason to examine Deere’s claim about what a prophet is stems from the fact that he violates the two tools used for constructing theology. The two tools every person must use in order to construct theology are the (1) the biblical message[18] and (2) the theological heritage of the church.[19] How Deere’s teaching contradicts the traditional office of the prophet in the Old Testament has already been displayed regarding the biblical message. Deere is also discounting the theological heritage of most evangelical churches, all orthodox churches, and all catholic churches. Any such claim that would discount an Old Testament doctrine and thousands of years of church history is going to need more than one cloudy contextual verse.
The fourth reason to examine Deere’s claim is the plausible origins of fruitful labor. Deere places a strong emphasis on the fact that a prophet is proven by the fruit. However, does not fruit also come from people’s statements that are not special revelation? If a prophet does make a prediction, and it causes people to do good, then is he a true prophet? For example, Ben Carson gave a well received speech in which he proclaimed that if America continued to place an increasing emphasis on sports, it would soon end up in despair like past powerful countries have (an example being Rome). If a hearer applies this to his life and it produces fruit in his life, is he a prophet? Ben Carson is a Christian, and he seeks to speak his voice to cause good in the world—to produce fruit—but does his statement make him a prophet merely because it caused fruit in someone’s life? Is anyone who produces good fruit a prophet?
V. DEERE’S CORRECT VIEW OF SCRIPTURE AS PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT
It is important to observe Deere’s view of Scripture and how he believes it plays a strong role in the life of a prophet or Christian. An important distinction in Deere’s argument must be shared: he believes “all private revelation in any form ought to be checked against the Scriptures.”[20] This is comforting for most evangelicals because God is not going to contradict Himself. If all private revelation must be checked against Scriptures, it is important that Christians are constantly in Scripture. Why? Because as Deere accurately explains, “Scripture has absolute authority over all believers, everywhere, at all times. Divine personal guidance has authority only over the person to whom it is given. And personal guidance is never given to us to control someone else.”[21] This distinction that Deere provides about the unique and heightened authority of Scripture is important because it means, according to Deere, that the personal revelation given to a “prophet” in today’s world is less authoritative than what the Bible teaches. Deere and Glenn Kreider agree that if the experience or private revelation that a person receives does not match Scripture, then the person should yield to the Bible.[22]
However, as Deere points out, this belief in the Bible’s authority must not go too far. Deere is correct in his description and labeling some Christians as “Bible Deists.” In fact, he even claims that he was a Bible Deist before converting to his belief that the book of Acts is a model to be followed by Christians. To be a Bible Deist is to look at the Bible and ignore the work of the Holy Spirit. A Bible Deist believes the Bible is the only revelation of God and thus ignores the “voice of God” and limits His divine authority. This means the Bible Deist might even substitute the Bible for God and preach the Bible more than God or Christ.[23] Besides the fact that being a Bible Deist places too much emphasis on the Bible and not enough on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Bible Deism also places too much emphasis on the role of the person interpreting the Bible.[24] Plainly speaking, Bible Deism is wrong. Christians are not to be “Bible Deists” who depend solely and only on the word of God for guidance. It is important to realize that the Bible does contain answers to a large amount of questions Christians might have about life, but not every single question. In the Methodical Bible Study, Robert Traina explains to Bible interpreters that the Bible “is not an Encyclopedia Britannica in the field of religion. Its historical purpose is not to cover every possible problem which may arise. It contains some specific answers and many general principles.”[25] What a modern Christian needs is not just the Bible, but the Holy Spirit because He can illuminate the Bible’s teachings to His believers.
VI. NECESSARY ELEMENTS TO HEAR GOD’S VOICE
Deere admits what most evangelicals would admit when it comes to hearing God’s audible voice or discerning God’s will: it is laborious. Deere explains that for modern Christians to hear God’s voice they need to be completely available to Him. They need to be ready for Him to speak and they need to listen.[26] Sometimes God’s words of revelation are spontaneous and informal, thus the Christian seeking to follow God’s will—either by revelation from God or other more conservative evangelical means—needs to constantly be waiting for God to speak and be willing to follow what is said. This state of mind of willingness to obey is one of the main criteria of what God needs to see in order to speak to His people, according to Deere.[27]
Another element that Christians need to practice in their lives in order to hear God’s voice is the attitude of simply listening to him. Deere admits that this can take time and that it is hard work, but over time any Christian who consistently spends time in God’s word, practices humility, and seeks to hear God can and will hear God’s voice. If there are criteria that Deere says Christians need to have in order to correctly hear God’s voice, there are also things that Christians might do to push God away and prevent them from hearing his voice.
Conversely, the main thing that pushes God away from revealing His words to Christians, according to Deere, is pride. Deere explains it this way, “God is repulsed by pride, and you don’t normally talk to someone who repulses you.”[28] Deere continues by quoting Psalm 138:6, “Though the LORD is great, he cares for the humble, but he keeps his distance from the proud.” If one does adhere to Deere’s belief that God does speak in a revelatory way to Christians (or in a more conservative evangelical manner), Deere correctly points out that pride will keep God distant. Instead Christians need to maintain an attitude of humility toward God.
VII. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN GOD’S VOICE AND A PROPHET’S INTERPRETATION
Deere states that the authority of the Bible is unique and primary while the revelation that Christians receive today is secondary. Because of this, Deere has to qualify and explain why prophets might be wrong and why their incorrect prophesies do not disqualify them for the title of prophet. Deere states that prophets must “distinguish between revelation, interpretation, and application.”[29] This distinction between revelation, interpretation, and application is how Deere justifies a prophet not being 100 percent accurate while at the same time still being a prophet. In this manner, Deere is able to say that if a modern day prophet received a word revealed from God, interprets it, applies it to someone, and then it does not come true, the error was on either the prophet’s interpretation or application. In other words, Deere believes that the revelation was true but the interpretation of it and the application of it could have been incorrect. The first element (revelation from God) is always correct while the second and third elements (interpretation and application) are susceptible to the human interpreter’s clouding of the prophesy.
Any Bible student recognizes the idea of interpretation of the Bible being a secondary revelation of God as a necessary element in Bible study. The primary revelation is the word of God, Scripture. The work of the Bible studier is to interpret the revealed word of God and try to discover the correct meaning of the biblical text. When looking at the biblical text as history, even the apostles did not put their own confidence in interpretation.[30] Deere says that the interpretations that Bible scholars make from the Bible do not give them power.[31] If these interpretations from the primary source of revelation of God, Scripture, are not worthy of significant confidence, there appears to be an error for anyone attempting to give legitimacy to the interpretation of God’s secondary revelation from God (as Deere claims revelation to modern day prophets is secondary to the Bible).
VIII. KEEPING THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE OF DEERE’S ARGUMENTS
With this assessment of Deere’s view of revelation and prophesy in light of the Old Testament’s teaching on prophesy, it is important to note the perspective a reader must have of Deere’s arguments. Christian theology is “reflecting on and articulating the God-centered life and beliefs that Christians share as followers of Jesus Christ, and it is done that God might be glorified in all Christians are and do.”[32] Even though people might disagree with Deere and his position on the active role of the Holy Spirit today it is important to note that he does what he does and says what he says in order to bring glory to God. His book and advocacy for the presence of the Holy Spirit is done so that people will be drawn closer to God which matches the purpose of Christian theology to glorify God. Throughout Deere’s book he states that he—similar to modern evangelicals—believes that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, revelation of God.[33] This, of course, is an essential evangelical doctrine on which many can agree with him. Furthermore, by the “fruit” of prophesy, Deere regularly points out the fact that these visions, dreams, words of knowledge, and miracles regularly can be used to bring people closer to God. Deere shares story after story that the fruit of the voice of God does bring people closer to Him. This “fruit” is an outcome that all evangelicals claim to be important and essential to living out the Christian faith in a modern world.
Bibliography
Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Voice of God: How God Speaks Today Through Prophesies, Dreams, and Visions. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. (please note that that link is an “affiliate link” in which Amazon pays me a small commission if you purchase the book using my link)
Dulles, Avery. Models of Revelation. Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983.
Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson. Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to Study God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Johnson, Luke T. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986.
Kreider, Glenn. “An Evangelical Doctrine of Revelation.” Unpublished class notes for ST 101. Dallas Theological Seminary, Summer Semester, 2004.
Kreider, Glenn. “Forms of Revelation in Scripture.” Unpublished class notes for ST 101. Dallas Theological Seminary. Summer Semester, 2004.
Traina, Robert. Methodical Bible Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1952.
[1] One should often be reminded that the Holy Spirit is one of three parts of the triune God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither is more important than the other.
[2] Jack Deere, Surprised by the Voice of God: How God Speaks Today Through Prophesies, Dreams, and Visions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 57.
[3] Glenn Kreider, “An Evangelical Doctrine of Revelation,” unpublished class notes for ST101 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Summer Semester, 2004), 1.
[4] This author realizes that some of the elements listed here can be interchanged. For simplicity all of the ways Deere believes Christians should hear the voice of God have been listed in order to provide inclusion with the goal of not excluding anything.
[5] Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation (Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983), 75. For an entire chapter on this model see “Model Three: Revelation as Inner Experience” in Models of Revelation, 68-83.
[6] Deere, Surprised by the Voice, 5. Criteria for hearing the voice of God will be shared later in this paper.
[7] Ibid., 53.
[8] “The coming of the Holy Spirit inaugurated an age of revelation. Instead of having only a few prophets in each generation, now ‘your sons and daughters will prophesy.’ Visions and dreams were now normal for the people of God. There were no longer age, economic, or gender restrictions on the Holy Spirit’s revelatory ministry. He was to inspire both sons and daughters, along with male and female servants, to prophesy and to understand revelatory phenomena.” Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 68, 208, 325, 327.
[10] Ibid., 68.
[11] Ibid, 325.
[12] Ibid., 327.
[13] Of which this writer must admit that Deere presents plenty of stories to show good fruit being brought because of God’s words of revelation.
[14] Ibid., 327.
[15] Perhaps even more emphasis can be added to the fact that Jesus was fulfilling the law since Matthew was a Jew writing to the Jews.
[16] Other translations such as the New American Standard Bible have Jesus use the word “fulfill” in this way, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17).
[17] Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986), 185. Johnson further explains, “The term ‘fulfill’ in this place also hears the sense of ‘reveal.’ By his teaching, Jesus will show the true and ‘full’ meaning of God’s torah. The proper understanding of ‘these commandments’ here is critical.’” Ibid., 187.
[18] Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to Study God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 92-95.
[19] Ibid., 95-98.
[20] Deer, Surprised by the Voice, 323.
[21] Ibid., 284.
[22] Glenn Kreider, “Forms of Revelation in Scripture,” unpublished class notes for ST101 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Summer Semester, 2004), 5.
[23] Deere, Surprised by the Voice, 252.
[24] Ibid., 257.
[25] Robert Traina, Methodical Bible Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1952),180.
[26] Deere, Surprised by the Voice, 310.
[27] Ibid., 314.
[28] Ibid., 243.
[29] Ibid., 191-193.
[30] Ibid., 120.
[31] Ibid., 124.
[32] Grenz and Olson, Who Needs Theology?, 69.
[33] Deere, Surprised by the Voice, 193.
Please note that any links to Amazon are “affiliate links” in which Amazon pays me a small commission if you purchase the book using my link.