• Skip to main content

Christopher L. Scott

  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Free Resources
  • Podcast

Book Reviews

A Review of “Spirit of the Rainforest” by Mark Andrew Ritchie

October 29, 2025 by Christopher L. Scott

This essay is a review of the book, Spirit of the Rainforest: A Yanomamo Shaman’s Story, by Mark Andrew Ritchie (Island Lake, IL: Island Lake Press, 2000. 288 pp).

            Mark Andrew Ritchie group up in poverty in Afghanistan, South Texas, and Oregon. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from Trinity International University (1980). In addition to Spirit of the Rainforest he is the author of God in the Pits. After 20 years of working in the financial services industry, Ritchie turned his attention to Divinity studies and authoring two books.

            Written in first person narrative, Spirit of the Rainforest describes the life of the Yanomamo people according to a powerful shaman called “Jungleman.” It should be noted that the Yanomamo people do not use names. In the beginning of the book Jungleman says, “I have lots of names—all us Yanomamo do. But we almost never speak them” (p. 21). The book focuses on telling the story of approximately 32 years of life in the Amazon from the way they lived before the “nabas” arrived and told them of the great spirit, “Yai-Pada.” Perhaps the book is best described by Richie’s own words in the author’s addendum, “Dignity prohibits a complete description of Jungleman’s talent. Deleewa, a person of considerable humility and piety, struggled in vain to translate Jungleman into palatable English while I asked myself, ‘How am I going to write this? No matter how much I tone this man down, I still can hear the critics: “Too much sex—too much violence—too degrading of women”” (p. 239). This book is a gripping account of the wild life in the Amazon.

            Reading the first two sections of Spirit of the Rainforest orients readers to the life of the Yanomamo: sniffing “ebene” in order to dance with spirits, using spirits to kill babies in enemy villages, raids to physically kill men in other villages, gang rape of women, giving away daughters to men even though the daughters are so young that they had not developed breasts yet, never backing down from a fight even when the warrior knows he will lose, always living in fear of being killed by another village, and regular death by starvation (mostly for the children because the warriors think they should eat first). These are what one would call the “way of the Yanomamo” according to Jungleman in Spirit of the Rainforest.

            Many people living in the “civilized west” would see this lifestyle as being brutal, ferocious, and barbaric. Jungleman himself admits to living in constant fear, so much fear that he would go for weeks without sleeping. Instead, he always laid in his hammock awake and fearful that an enemy village would be coming to raid his village in revenge. Even hunting in the Amazon became dangerous because “after what we did to Potato Village [one of many raids on neighboring villages], there is no such thing as a safe trail” (p. 39).

            In spite of this fear the Yanomamo men display a false and hollow courage. As warriors they never admit fear. They are warriors! (p. 59). The wars they engaged in were always wars seeking revenge. If a neighboring village came and cut off the breast of a woman, they would travel and cut off two breasts of a woman in their village as an act of revenge. In Jungleman’s words, “You could win a war with the Yanomamo today, but your children’s children would pay for it later” (p. 44). The reader quickly learns that the Yanomamo always sought revenge and never practiced forgiveness.

            In addition to the constant wars between villages the degrading of women is something that most females cringe at and probably cannot fathom. Even though the Yanomamo men were strict in not allowing anyone to call them a name (especially a childhood name), the women are called any name the men want. The men often asserted that the world was made for them and that the women were here for the men, not the men for the women (p. 102). Taking the degradation of women further than just name calling and role view, the men only cared about a woman’s vagina (p. 157) and speak of a young bride-to-be as being “ripe and ready” for sex (p. 190). A point in time when one woman was extremely ill and she needed the man whom she shared her hammock with the most, he left her saying, “I’ll never get any more sex out of her” (p. 189). 

            One of the most intriguing things about the book are the “spiritual experiences” of Jungleman as a shaman. Jungleman describes knowing the spirit world ever since he was a young man. He described these spirits talking to him and them “wanting to have you.” These spirits were companions he had when he had “ebene” blown into his nose. These spirits even had names such as charming, jaguar, alligator, thunder, and sucking-out. Even though these spirits appear to worship him and build his ego as the mightiest warrior and shaman (p. 86), they often did not work when called upon to heal people. More than seven different examples are specifically explained by Jungleman of when he called on the spirits to heal someone, yet that person still died. This included all of his children expect for one son. As Jungleman continues to tell his story the “Yai-Pada” spirit is introduced as the “enemy spirit” to the spirits Jungleman has (p. 87). Over time the gospel is introduced as “Yai-Pada” first by the “nabas” (white foreigners who began to live with the Yanomamo people) and then it is introduced regularly to Jungleman by his fellow shaman.

            Talk of a “great naba spirit” called “Yai-Pada” is definitely the true gospel when readers examine the doctrinal elements of the Yanomamo faith in Yai-Pada. A general description of Yai-Pada is that he (Yai-Pada) became a Yanomamo himself who grew up as a baby, showed people how to live completely different ways, knew he would be killed, allowed himself to be killed, and that his death was a death for all of the Yanomamo (p. 159). In addition Yai-Pada would burn the world with fire (p. 76), his land is beautiful (p. 77), no one can get close to him without burning up (p. 77), he really cares for people (p. 88), he wants the Yanomamo people to have better lives (p. 88), he will be the only spirit (p. 88), he is the one who created all other spirits (p. 114), he is the spirit of peace (p. 207), the Yanomamo will see Yai-Pada one day (p. 207), and those who do not follow Yai-Pada go to the fire pit (p. 207).   

            But, does an indigenous people living in the Amazon among numerous spirits truly understand the gospel message and display adequate faith. Evidence of the Yanomamo Christian faith is displayed in their desire to learn the ways of Yai-Pada For almost half of the book various shamans and villages express their desire to know Yai-Pada, learn his ways, and live a better life. Several shamans constantly asked themselves what they could to convince a naba to live with their village in order to learn the ways of Yai-Pada. The shamans admitted that they live miserable lives and that following Yai-Pada was how they could change. And the reader who read the entire book could see that drastic changes among the Yanomamo had occurred. No more wars, less degrading of women, and forgiving others when something was done wrong. These are all signs of wanting to know God and live what he teaches is a strong sign of the Christian faith.  

            Comparing my western American worldview to that of the Yanomamo people living in the Amazon reveals a tension in both locations between culture and Christian sanctification. In the American culture often children are brought up in the capitalistic and materialistic atmosphere desiring wealth and fame as the sign of an enjoyable life. However, when someone discovers Jesus as his or her personal savior the values of that person’s life change. The Christian has been united with Christ in his death and resurrection which means he can “produce a harvest of good deeds for God” (Romans 7:4, NLT). Instead of seeking wealth and fame the person knows that she should seek to serve the Lord and honor him in all that is done. Thus, serving God can sometimes be counter the American culture. As a result, the new Christian has to constantly struggle and battle the old sinful ways in an effort to be more Christ-like.

            The Yanomamo people have experienced a similar tension between the ways they lived before they were introduced to Yai-Pada and now that they are seeking to live the way Yai-Pada wants them to live. Some of the cultural experiences of the Yanomamo have been fine to continue even though they are following Yai-Pada. One example is how the Yanomamo have many names but are not called by those names. This is evidenced by Jungleman telling the story of his people many years after having learned about Yai-Pada, but still stating at the beginning of his story that he is not called any specific name. However, other cultural norms of the Yanomamo which directly clashed with the ways of Yai-Pada had to change. Those changes have been difficult to make since they were part of the Yanomamo identity and habits. These are changes to constant wars between villages, lack of forgiveness, gang rapes of women, and forcing women to share hammocks with men which treated them harshly.

            Towards the end of Spirit of the Rainforest, it is clear that the Yanomamo believe in Yai-Pada and they want to follow him. But they still battle to rid themselves of their old ways and struggle to live “peacefully” as they know Yai-Pada wants them to live. The Christian living in America who grew up in a capitalistic economy similarly finds himself seeking to live a godly life now that he is saved instead of his past way of focusing on wealth and material accumulation.

Please note that the links to Amazon on this page are “affiliate” links which means I receive a small commission if you purchase the book (or anything else) from Amazon using my link. I use these commissions to pay for the hosting costs of this website.

Filed Under: Book Reviews

A Review of “Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond”

October 27, 2025 by Christopher L. Scott

 This essay is a book review of Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond edited by Stanley Gundry (series editor) and Darrell Bock (general editor), Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999. 330pp. In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond three writers present their views of the millennium.

The premillennial view is presented by Craig Blaising, professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The postmillennial view is presented by Kenneth Gentry Jr., executive director of GoodBirth Ministries. The amillennial view is presented by Robert Strimple, professor of systematic theology at Westminister Seminary California.

Each of these writers summarizes his position on the doctrine of the millennium using a hermeneutical framework and specific biblical texts to support his view.[1]

I. PREMILLENNIALISM

A. A Summary of the Premillennial View

The premillennial position believes that Jesus will establish his rule for a literal 1,000 years on earth (p. 157). This view believes that Christ will come again at the beginning of the literal 1,000 years of his kingdom and before the new heaven and new earth are created. This 1,000 year kingdom is seen as a complete replacement of the conditions humans now experience on the earth (p. 193). Currently, the conditions that we live in now are a result of Christ ascending to heaven (Acts 1), Christ sitting at the right hand of God, and the Holy Spirit indwelling believers. But the “fullness of the eschatological kingdom has yet to come” (p. 196).

Part of the basis for the premillennial view is that prophets in the Old Testament speak of the future restoration of Israel with the expectation of a worldwide kingdom (Dan 2:34-35, 44; Isa 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-8; p. 193). This worldwide kingdom appears to be uniquely different than what we experience now on earth. There are three stages of resurrection in the premillennial view: 1) Christ, 2) those who belong to Christ (who are raised at his coming), and 3) the end of the kingdom (2 Cor 15:23-24; pp. 203-204).

With Jesus’ coming he will raise the dead in two stages: 1) At the beginning of the kingdom so that some can participate with him in the Millennial Kingdom and 2) At the end of the kingdom he will raise the rest of the dead and institute he final judgment (1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:51-58; p. 157-158).

B. The Hermeneutics of Premillennialism

The hermeneutics of premillennialism believes that the “New Testament carries forward the OT eschatological hope and adds to it the Revelation that the Messiah of the eschatological kingdom is Jesus of Nazareth” (Lk 1:32-33; p. 195). Furthermore, premillennialism is based on progressive revelation and how the New Testament clarifies possible meanings of Old Testament prophesies and texts. This is often called the “literal-historical-grammatical” interpretation of Scripture which places an emphasis on understanding the message of Scripture as a whole. For example, the primary basis of premillennialism’s literal 1,000 year reign is the understanding that Revelation 19-20 is a literal and consecutive vision from John.

Premillennialists see a progression in the book of Revelation that reveals the past and future history of Jesus Christ. Premillennialism sees Revelation 1:8, 18; and 22 all referencing Jesus Christ (p. 210).

With this strong emphasis on Revelation 20 being the basis of the literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth, Blaising presents six reasons to support this view: (1) the visions of 19:11-21:8 are a transition between the vision of Babylon and the view of the new Jerusalem, (2) the visions of 19:11-21:8 are a unified sequence because there is no structure marker to indicate a break of the sequence, (3) six out of the eight visions of 19:11-21:8 are seen as contemporaneous with the second coming of Christ, (4) Satan’s interactions with the world in 20:1-3 are not compatible with how Satan interacts with the world prior to the second coming of Christ, (5) the rebellion after the Millennium (vv. 7-10) is described in a way that distinguishes it from the state of affairs before the second coming of Christ, and (6) there is a 1,000 year reign of believers who have been raised to life based on Rev 20:4-5 (pp. 214-221).[2]

C. The Key Scriptures in Support of the Premillennial View

Revelation 19-20 is the primary text used to understand Christ’s second coming as a literal 1,000 year reign on earth. Important Old Testament prophesies for the premillennial view are Isaiah 2:2-4; 65:17-25; 66:18-23; Daniel 2:34-35, 44; and Micah 4:1-8. Important New Testament texts on the rapture are 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; and 1 Corinthians 15:51-58

II. POSTMILLENNIALISM

A. A Summary of the Postmillennial View

The postmillennial view states that Christ’s glorious return to the earth will happen after the nonliteral 1,000 year reign of believers on earth. While the premillennialist says Christ comes to bind Satan, the postmillennialist says that Christ already bound Satan when Christ came in the first century. Therefore, the Christian, according to the postmillennial position, is already in the non-literal 1,000 year reign. This means that Satan still has some level of dominion over the world now, but it is not in the same way that he did before Jesus came to earth in the first century AD.

The postmillennial position is partially based on Isaiah 2:2-4 and Jeremiah 31. Gentry states that Judah and Jerusalem in Isa 2 represent the whole people of God (p. 36). He develops this further stating the “mountain,” “house of the God of Jacob,” and “Zion” referenced in these texts refer to the church, not to the nation of Israel.

A belief that the church is now in the nonliteral 1,000 year reign means there is an expectation that a large percentage of the world’s population will turn to Christ by the spirit-blessed proclamation of the gospel (p. 22) which can be summarized into the three theological foundations of postmillennialism: (1) God’s creational purpose based on God’s creation of the perfect world in Genesis means he still has a hope for its restoration (Gen 1:31; Rom 11:36; Col 1:16; p. 23), (2) God’s sovereign power to do what he does because he chooses and brings things back together in the end (Eza 46:10; 55:11; Zeck 4:6; Eph 1:11), and (3) God’s blessed provision that he has provided us what we need to proclaim the gospel (Rom 8:31).

With this, the postmillennial view sees all people as blessed through Abraham’s seed (12:5-7) as a “plural” element (meaning the entirety of the church is the blessing and the blessed), not as a “singular” (Christ being the “seed”). Therefore, the hope of postmillennialism is earthly through the belief that the “earth” is the focal point from Genesis to Revelation (p. 55).

B. The Hermeneutics of Postmillennialism

Postmillennials see the rest of the Bible as speaking about the millennium in much clearer terms than Revelation 20. Gentry claims that this passage (Rev 20) is the “tail that wags the dog”[3] when it is placed as the predominant text about the return of Christ (p. 50). Instead of looking at the book of Revelation as a cohesive vision from John, postmillennials believe other parts of Scripture reveal more about the Millennium.

One example of this is Gentry’s view of Jesus’ teaching on Matt 13 where Jesus tells the stories of the farmer scattering seed, the wheat and seeds, and the mustard seed. These stories are interpreted in a way that sees the millennial kingdom being present in the world now as Christians attempt to evangelize the world. This type of interpretation is what many would consider “spiritual” interpretation versus the “literal-historical-grammatical” interpretation of the premillennial view.

C. The Key Scriptures in Support of the Postmillennial View

Some of the most important Old Testament texts in the postmillennial view are: Genesis 12:3 (a key emphasis from the postmillennial view is the “all peoples of the earth” in this verse); Psalm 2; Isaiah 2:2-4; and Jeremiah 31:31-34 (this new covenant is seen as something for all people). Important New Testament passages are Matthew 13; 28:18-20; John 12:31-32; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28; and Revelation 20.

III. AMILLENNIALISM

A. A Summary of the Amillennial View

The amillennial view states that the New Testament teaches all events of Christ’s second coming will occur at the same time in a cluster (p. 100). This is based upon the understanding that anyone who has accepted Christ is the “true Israel” because Christ is Israel and anyone who is in Christ is also in Israel (p. 88-89).

With this position, the amilliennialist believes that the day lies ahead when Christ will come again, believers will be resurrected, there will be judgment for all, the New Heaven and New Earth will be created, the final kingdom will be inaugurated, and those who have been redeemed will be in a blessed state (p. 129). This “day” according to the amillennial view is a short period of time in which all these events happen at once. There is not a literal 1,000 year of reign of Christ (premillennial) nor is there a non-literal 1,000 year reign of believers (postmillennial).

This position is based on John 2 where Jesus refers to himself as the true temple of God (p. 98-99). In addition, the amillennialist does not believe that the Old Testament teaches a future millennial kingdom of Christ (p. 100) but rather that the Old Testament prophets speak of the Messiah’s everlasting kingdom and blessing (Gen 17:7-8; 48:4; 2 Sam 23:5; 1 Chr 16:17-18; Ps 105:10-11; Isa 45:17; 55:3; 61:7-8; Jer 32:40; 50:4-5; Ez 16:60; 37:26; Dan 4:3, 34; 7:14, 27; 12:2).

Additionally, the promise of the Old Testament for Israel to take the promised land is no longer binding, but instead it is now promised to the “elect in Christ” (p. 99). As a result of this there will be a restoration and renewal of the earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:1) which should be seen as the New Heaven and New Earth, not for a 1,000 years but for eternity (p. 91). Therefore, the amillennial view does not see Rom 11 or Rev 20 as describing a 1,000 year reign with Christ at the beginning (premillennial) or end (postmillennial).[4]

B. The Hermeneutics of Amillennialism

The hermeneutics of amillennialism are often described as a “spiritualization” of the text. This view places a very strong emphasis on reinterpreting Old Testament prophesy according to the revelation of the New Testament Scripture.

What confuses the amillennial spiritualization of the text is that sometimes this view takes a spiritual view of the text yet at other times it takes a literal view of the text. For example, it takes the meaning of “day” to be literal in 2 Thessalonian 1:5-10 and “hour” to be literal in John 5:28-29.

Seeing these two passages as “literal” indicates that the end times events will all take place at the same time. However, when coming to Revelation 11 and Revelation 20 they do not take the meaning of “year” to be literal.

C. Key Scriptures in Support of the Amillennial View

The amillennial proponents provide a thorough list of Scripture that they believe say there will be no 1,000 year reign of Christ or believers on earth: Isaiah 42:1-7; 44:1-2, 21, 45:4; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:7-9, 26-27, 29; and Hebrews 8, 10. Some of the key New Testament passages that Strimple cites to support the amillennial view are John 5:28-29; Romans 8:17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:20-26; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; and 2 Peter 3:3-14.

IV. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND

General editor of this book, Darrell Bock, brings these three views together saying, “These essays reveal significant differences in the various views, yet they all affirm the ultimate victory of God—a victory that has fundamental significance for all Christians in expressing the hope that is part of the gospel” (p. 279-280). After a look at these views of the millennium it is clear that the authors agree on several important topics: (1) Scripture reveals that Jesus is coming back, (2) Satan will loose, (3) we will be joined with Christ in the New Heaven and New Earth. Even though there are clear differences among these views I believe these authors have all agreed on the most important thing—Christ shall redeem and rule.


[1] Throughout this article I will share that “the premillennial view believes” or “the amillennial position thinks” as a way to articulate the position of each viewpoint. However, I realize that within premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism there are various differences even within each view. Therefore, I will present each view as if that is “the” view for that entire system of thought while also acknowledging that there is a uniqueness within each of these views.

[2] Another element of the hermeneutics of premillennials is that Jesus coming is connected to the Day of the Lord (which is based on 1 Cor 1:7-8; 1 Peter 1:8; 13). The “day of the Lord” passages are a little more complex to discuss and have been omitted from this review due to limited space.

[3] James Blevins, “Revelation, Book of,” in Mills, ed., Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, 761.

[4] It should be noted that Strimple’s article is 46 pages. However, 17 of those pages Strimple uses to explain that neither Rom 11 or Rev 20 teach that there will be a 1,000 year reign on earth.

Please note that the links to Amazon on this page are “affiliate” links which means I receive a small commission if you purchase the book (or anything else) from Amazon using my link. I use these commissions to pay for the hosting costs of this website.

Filed Under: Book Reviews

A Review of “Surprised by the Voice of God” by Jack Deere

October 25, 2025 by Christopher L. Scott

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.

Filed Under: Book Reviews

Copyright © 2025 · Christopher L. Scott · 810 S. Evergreen Dr., Moses Lake, WA 98837