Rick Joyner, Interpretive Keys, and General Insanity.

So I’m clearly not blogging much, but I read an article recently on Charisma Magazine.  It was shared in this tweet:

As is typical of my ways, got a little bothered.  I took a shot off the port bow on Twitter:

One thing led to another and I ended up writing a summary and critique.

Here’s the Charisma article.

I thought I would share my response with you, my readers.  It’s hopefully a little helpful and practical example of sorting through a deceptive argument and recognizing how a deceptive person can say true things in the construction of a lie.

Here’s my summary and critique:

1. Joyner opens with a statement playing up to the typical confusion about the book of Revelation, and claiming that there are “there are some basic keys to understanding it.”
 .
2. He then states that “These are the same keys to understanding all revelation in the Bible.”
 .
3. He states that he first key to understanding the book of Revelation, and the entire Scripture, is to understand that “The book of Revelation is a revelation of Jesus Christ, period.”
 .
In saying that, he’s saying that the book of Revelation is topically aimed at revealing new information about Jesus Christ: he’s the direct subject matter of the book.
 .
That’s not a point of argument at all.
 .
4. Joyner sets Jesus up as the primary topic of the book when he says “Possibly the biggest reason why there is much confusion about this book is because people try to see it more as a revelation of the Antichrist or of the events prophesied in it.”
 .
That’s simply not true. The revelations  about Christ (in the book of Revelation) include Christ’s relation to the AntiChrist, as well as all the events foretold therein.  Joyner sets up a false dichotomy as if the main subject matter of the book of Revelation is the only relevant subject matter to the interpretation of the book.  You don’t understand Revelation by myopically focusing on only one element of it.
 .
privacy sweater.
5. He then furthers this with his absurd illustration about “Just as some get distracted from the River of Life by the tributaries that feed it, many get diverted from the main revelation of this book by majoring on minors”.
 .
Now again, Joyner is treading carefully but not carefully enough. It’s true that Jesus is the main subject matter of Revelation, but nobody actually thinks that the “interpretive key” to the book of Revelation is found in the topic of the AntiChrist…or the rest of the events of the…oh wait.  Never mind.
 .
Remember, Joyner opened with talk about the “interpretive key”; the way to make sense of all the confusing details (like the AntiChrist or the other events therein involving bowls, trumpets, dragons, prostitutes, feasts of corpses, etc.).
 .
6. Joyner then says “Even as we seek to understand the sequence of events and different manifestations of evil in Revelation, we see them in relation to the ultimate purposes of God in Christ. This is not just key to understanding this book, but to understanding the Bible, and indeed all understanding.”
 .
So now he’s confusing categories and playing an exegetical shell game. The example he opened with (understanding the confusing details in the book of Revelation) has been tossed aside and now he’s taking his exegetical key and turning it into a key for all knowledge.
.
7. He then quotes Col. 1:16-17 and Eph. 1:9-10 and continues on his changed trajectory when he says “It is all about Jesus. To fully understand the creation or events of history, we must see from this perspective. All things work toward the ultimate purpose of God—the summing up all things in His Son.”
 .
He uses truisms and strings them together in a deceptive way.
 .
Does Col. 1:16-17 or Eph. 1:9-10 state that focusing on the topic of Jesus in the literary work of the book of Revelation will ensure an accurate interpretation of that work?
 .
Not for a second.
 .
Do those passages say anything about Christ being the interpretive key for the entire Scripture?
 .
Not for a second.
 .
Neither passage is talking about Christ in relation to interpreting inscripturated prophecy. Not even close.
 .
Remember, that’s what the article is about.
 .
8. Joyner then even goes back the interpretation of the literary work of the book of Revelation when he says:
 .
“To understand our own lives we must see through this key. Everything in our life was allowed to lead us to the Son and to have our life summed up in Him. All events in Revelation work toward that end. Jesus is the lens we must look through to understand everything.
 .
So why is there so much about the Antichrist and the great evils that come upon the earth in Revelation? As bad as they may seem, they too will lead toward the ultimate purpose of God—the redemption, reconciliation, and restoration found in Jesus alone.”
 .
So he’s conflating categories like a madman.
 .
Apple-Orange-2
 .
Sure, Christ is the creator and sustainer of all things.
.
Sure, all events and knowledge find their culmination and ultimate understanding in relation to him.
 .
Neither one of those facts is some sort of direct key to understanding the literary work of the book of Revelation.
 .
BUT, Rick Joyner thinks so, since he then makes an exegetical application of his principles.
.
9. In the sentence directly after the passage I just quoted, Joyner says “The ‘man of sin’ is a personification of the sin of man. In this vision, we see the ultimate result of sin and rebellion, causing us to know that this is not what we want to do again.”
 .
Ah. Now we see what’s going on.
 .
Since “The book of Revelation is a revelation of Jesus Christ”, the application of that is that the “man of sin” is “a personification of the sin of man”.
 .
In other words, he’s not a real person but is rather a metaphor for “human sin”.
 .
What’s interesting is that, being a KJV quoting Charismaniac, Rick Joyner uses the phrase “man of sin”. That phrase occurs only ONE place in the entire KJV: 2 Thess. 2:3.
 .
Let’s ignore the fact that the passage he cites isn’t even in the book of Revelation for a second and press on.
 .
Looking at the greater passage of 2 Thess. 2:3-4 where the “man of sin” is discussed in more detail (I’m using the ESV), we see:
 .
“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”
 .
Hmm.  How do I express my thoughts?
 .
1 + 1
.
So the “man of sin”  is actually “a personification of the sin of man” (according to Joyner), but apparently this “personification” (i.e. a literary device as opposed to an actual flesh-and-blood person) will:
 .
a. Oppose and exalt himself against every so-called god (which sounds like opposition to idolatry…which would be a strange thing for “sin” to do)
 .
b. Take his seat in the temple (which must also be some sort of metaphor for…WHO knows what?)
.
c. Proclaim himself to be God (which is utterly nonsense on the level of a zen cone. How does a literary device that refers to the sinfulness of mankind proclaim himself to be God…in “the temple”…).
 .
I mean, what in the WORLD does that mean if it’s a metaphor?
.
Sin will oppose idolatry in the hearts of believers (since we’re the “temple” of the Holy Spirit, right? Or is “the temple” something else?) until it causes believers to commit idolatry?
 .
That’s nonsense on the level of Steve Munsey’s lobotomy-induced ramblings.  Don’t think that you have to watch this all…in fact, it’s likely dangerous to expose your mind to more than a small amount of this level of insanity:
 .
 .
So when you look at what Rick Joyner is saying, and consider his words with his examples and his own application of the principles that he pulls out, he’s just making stuff up.
 .
Such is the case with eisegesis like this.
 .
Googly-eyed Charismaniacs like Rick Joyner deceive innumerable amounts of people by weaving together truisms (Revelation is topically about Jesus + Jesus is the center of everything + Jesus is the culmination of all knowledge) into a braid that is ultimately a lie (“the ‘man of sin’ is a personification of the sin of man”).
 .
Rick Joyner doesn’t have a SINGLE interpretive key to the book of Revelation.
 .
His misapplied but true principles ultimately have no application in his exegesis other than distracting the gullible from the fact that he’s absolutely making up nonsense and trying to pass it off as biblical exegesis.  Like all frauds, he just robs ideas from others and reveals himself as a charlatan when he tries to show off his ideological spoils.
 .
Wiggum.

Sadly, on the way to reading 2 Thess 2, Rick apparently missed the right interpretation of 2 Thess. 1:5-10.  Unless Rick repents of his lifelong career of spiritual deception, Jesus will get his revenge.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “the key to exegesis is learning how to do proper exegesis” Unger

P.S. – I also commented on this article; I am shocked at how many Christians get suckered by “healthy living” bandwagons with promises of adding years to your life.

Like my comment if you agree.

 

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Rick Joyner, Interpretive Keys, and General Insanity.

    • Ha! I drop that level of condemnation with a select few…but Steve Munsey goes to such great lengths to show off his need of a straight jacket that I don’t feel bad.

      He’s the “pastor” of a church of like 20,000+ people and one of the most insane people on the internet.

      That’s going up against some incredibly strong competition…

  1. I am not sure you are taking into account that Joyner’s interpretation may be a proclaimed direct revelation from God making it less understandable to mere mortals. Joyner claims that his famous trilogy The Call, The Final Quest and the Torch and the Sword were full visions from God. Joyner insists they are not allegories. For those not familiar with Joyner, the books follow decent Christian believers on a weird mountain journey. Demons crawl on their backs and so many vultures fly overhead that they blacken the sky. The vultures then land on the believers and vomit on them. This is the only food that the believers receive – vulture vomit. The vultures also cover the believers in a repulsive slime of urine and feces and the believers for reasons unknown, enjoy this. Again, Joyner insists this is not an allegory. Joyner has made a small fortune on these books.

    Joyner is also the man overseeing the restoration of Lakeland revivalist Todd Bentley. That may be scarier than demons and vomiting vultures. Like your Barry Manilow look-alike on that video, maybe we should consider that this man needs help with more than his exegesis. People should reconsider reading Charisma News when they know this is the kind of person they pay to break down books of the Bible for them. Thanks for reviewing this.

      • I am glad it wasn’t just me. Joyner reminds me a lot of Ron Luce from Teen Mania. Ron is obsessed with things like burying kids alive and subjecting them to abuse like eating bowls of maggots and forcing them into claustrophobic conditions with rodents and extreme weather conditions. He seems enthralled with it. Ron is another darling of Charisma News. Some of these leaders with their bizarre obsessions seem to be wrestling with their own inner demons and I wish they would work those out before inflicting tainted teachings on others.

        BTW I had to looked Steve Munsey up after that video. I wasn’t familiar with him. It seems his large church property in Munster, IN and some of his personal real estate went into foreclosure around 2013. Not sure what happened after that. I hope we are seeing the decline or end of him.

        • Munsey us still alive and kicking. His church is on the Outreach Magazine top 20 largest churches in America.

          He’s the greatest evidence of God’s immense patience I have ever seen.

  2. I knew that Rick Joyner’s heretical ramblings went well beyond using his ‘gift’ of prophesy to pick sporting events, I just don’t have the courage, stamina, nor spare time to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Thank you for doing the dirty work of exposing this. Tell me – was he able to write an entire article without using the word “outpouring”? I haven’t seen any evidence of that yet.

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s