THE FINAL QUEST by Rick Joyner

A Review and Critique

© 1998, 1999 Eric S. Weiss

Page numbers are for the Whitaker House paperback edition, ISBN 0883684780 (1997). Where the page numbers differ from the page numbers of the original MorningStar Publications paperback edition, ISBN 1878327526, the corresponding page numbers for the MorningStar edition are shown in [ ] at the beginning of each section.

Note: If any of the hypertext links (http:// ...) become inactive, notify me and I'll see if I can locate the document for you.

This review is the result of a friend asking me to help him write a critique of this book after we had discussed the mutual concerns we both had about it—concerns which are all the more important because of the widespread and generally enthusiastic acceptance the book has received in many Christian circles.

(In the transcript of an interview at http://www.hispraise.com/MorningStar/r_joyner.htm, Rick Joyner states: "I think we are approaching a quarter of a million being distributed. It is by far our best selling book ever, or at least headed towards being our best selling book ever. The reception has been extremely positive, even overwhelming positive, even among conservative evangelical circles. We are very thankful for that." Its translation into Spanish as LA BUSQUEDA FINAL, ISBN 0883684896, should result in even greater sales.)

I welcome and request your feedback, whether constructive, supportive or critical. Please substantiate any criticisms you might have with reasonable supporting proofs, whether from Scripture or from THE FINAL QUEST or from other sources (i.e., don't just tell me that you disagree with me or that I am wrong or call me nasty names).

Please read this article through at least twice (preferably at least a day apart) before forming your conclusions about what I've written. First impressions are not always the most accurate ones. I would be willing to bet that many who just absolutely loved THE FINAL QUEST upon their first reading would give it a less enthusiastic appraisal were they to spend some time thinking about what the author and the book are actually saying. And if you do intend to send me a response, please respect my request re: the kind of response I am asking for.

Here is part of my response to the kind of letter I am asking you NOT to send me:

Also, here is my response to another such letter:

About Me

If you want to know who I am or a little bit about me, read some of the stuff on my Web page, starting at http://www.geocities.com/papaweiss1/index.htm. I have had two years of formal training in New Testament Greek at The Criswell College in Dallas, Texas, and have continued my Greek studies informally to where I can interact with the text at a pretty decent level. I also took one year of biblical Hebrew there, but I can't and won't claim any similar proficiency—indeed, my Hebrew has degenerated to about a first-semester level, though I can still consult the standard reference works and the critical commentaries with understanding.

Because some persons who have read my critique have suggested I wrote what I did because I am anti-Charismatic or against prophecies and "prophets"—even asking if I know about or believe in the "gifts of the Spirit," etc.—I feel the need to give the following background information:

My wife and I lived in Kansas City, Missouri, for 15 years, from 1975-1990. I was saved and "filled with the Spirit" in 1977. After a couple years in denominational Christianity, we turned to non-denominational Charismatic churches. At various times we attended both Full Faith Church of Love (before and after they built and moved to the new, larger building in Shawnee Mission) and South Kansas City Fellowship (which became Kansas City Fellowship, and then Metro Vineyard Fellowship, and then Metro Christian Fellowship), as well as Full Faith Church of Love North (which used to be Second Creek Christian Church) and the north branch of Kansas City Fellowship. I've been to more Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship meetings and dinners than I can count, seeing Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, etc.

We were at South Kansas City Fellowship at the start when Mike Bickle began the church, travelling 25 miles each way to attend. We were there the day he gave his April 1983 prophetic vision/pronouncement, and I still have the tape, called "Blow the Trumpet in Zion." I/we saw and heard Bob Jones, Rick Joyner, Paul Cain, Mahesh Chavda, etc., in person in the early days.

We were there when the whole controversy about the "Kansas City Prophets" broke loose in Christianity Today Magazine and Charisma Magazine. I worked in downtown Kansas City and occasionally visited the Kansas City Fellowship morning or noon prayer meetings at a downtown office building, and years prior to that had attended a downtown Bible study led by Nick Jordan, who was in leadership at Full Faith Church of Love. I attended the joint conference Bickle held with the late John Wimber (head of the Vineyard Church), which they referred to as "cross-pollination." We were there when Ernie Gruen, the founding pastor of Full Faith Church of Love, labeled Bickle, Kansas City Fellowship, and the "prophets" (especially Jones, who Joyner exalts highly) a "Charismatic heresy," and I still have the tape of Gruen's message, called "Do We Keep Smiling and Say Nothing?" We were there when Wimber came to mediate the dispute and deposed Jones—and Kansas City Fellowship became a Vineyard church. We were members for a time at a Vineyard church until we left Kansas City for Denton, Texas, where we now live.

While here I've been to many of the meetings that grew out of the "Toronto Blessing" outpouring, including seeing and hearing John and Carol Arnott, the pastor (and his wife) of the Toronto church, when they came and spoke at Eaglemount Church in Lewisville, Texas, and I've gone to see Rodney Howard-Browne, the "father" of the "holy laughter" movement and an influential factor in the Toronto (Canada) and Brownsville (Florida) "revivals."

My wife gets visions, and I recently had a rather profound "visionary" experience myself—you can read it at http://www.geocities.com/papaweiss1/bride.htm—it's about the Bride of Christ. We came to the church we were at for the past eight or nine years partly because of a worship service in which the Spirit of God moved more powerfully than we had ever experienced up till that time or even since: my wife was healed of a hand injury of long standing, our younger daughter saw a vision of Jesus, some persons were apparently delivered from demons, everyone was spiritually broken and laid bare before the Lord, prostrate on the floor or in the pews with much weeping and crying out to the Lord, I got filled with a laughter and joy from the Lord much like the "laughing" thing of today—but this was in 1990 and NO ONE had to come and "minister" it to me—it happened spontaneously by the Spirit of God.

(I can say, though, from my own experience and observation, that such exciting spiritual happenings are not sufficient to keep a person following Jesus, and I don't put as much stock or hope in these kinds of things (visions, prophecies, etc.) in terms of their "holding power" as some people do. Paul's message came with signs and wonders, but he still had to deal with Christians not "getting it," even when they had seen and/or experienced these things.)

A pastor-friend of mine here is on a first-name basis with the previously-mentioned Paul Cain, who was/is perhaps the major "prophet" of the "Kansas City (and Vineyard and MorningStar—i.e., Joyner's ministry) Prophets." It was this friend who asked me to write my critique of THE FINAL QUEST because he and a well-known Charismatic author-friend of his (whose books have been published by MorningStar), with whom I am also acquainted, had some misgivings about the book that were similar to mine.

Etc., etc.

Which is all to say that I am quite familiar with, and not against, the things that Joyner writes about. While none of this necessarily makes me "qualified" to write about THE FINAL QUEST, it should give the reader some assurance that I am not criticizing the book from the standpoint of an "outsider."

- Eric Weiss

UPDATE

I have gotten many requests to share or print this review, and several sites are now linking to it. Of the responses and comments I have received from those who have read it, the majority have been basically of two kinds: a. Agreement with much of what I've written coupled with wonder or dismay at the number of readers who are enthusiastic about the book; and b. Written attacks and criticisms of me for daring to "judge" or "criticize" one of God's "prophets." Few respondents, however, have done what I specifically asked them to do when challenging what I have written, i.e.: substantiate their criticisms with reasonable supporting proofs, whether from Scripture or from THE FINAL QUEST or from other sources.

I am puzzled by this apparent unwillingness to "judge" what Joyner has written, as well as the anger and defensiveness against those like myself who suggest that THE FINAL QUEST ought to be examined. One response I received was a flippant refusal to read my critique, saying simply that they believed in letting God judge God's prophets. If we are willing to judge and evaluate and teach and preach against what is written by those we consider to be "non-Christians" (i.e., "cults"), we ought to be willing and open to using the same standards and methods of judgment on those whom we consider to be "Christians." After all, the "cults" and their leaders consider themselves to be "Christian" and speaking for God; it is we—because we compare their writings and teachings with Scripture and church history and tradition—who make the judgment/determination that what they are putting forth is not from God.

I sent a copy of this essay to MorningStar Ministries via e-mail shortly after I wrote it, but never received a response. At the end of his MorningStar Prophetic Bulletin for May/June 1999, in an essay entitled "Columbine & the End of Time," Joyner wrote:

Why we seldom respond to false accusations

Since this is a frequently asked question, I will try to briefly address it here.

First, it does not seem possible today to accomplish anything of significance without becoming the target of critics and slander. It is a sad condition of the times that there is so much hunger for gossip and evil reports that one can make a very good living or build a large ministry just by attacking others. We have been subject to false accusations for many years and feel that it just "comes with the territory." We usually do not pay any attention to them, except to consider it an honor and encouragement to be attacked by some ministries that are so obviously the embodiment of the accuser of the brethren.

Second, we feel that those who listen to the accusing ministries and journalists are the kind of people that we do not want around anyway. We do not let paranoid people dictate what we do, as we feel that these are the people who will always be the farthest from the Lord and His true works.

Third, we do intend to answer some of them at the right time and place. Usually they are just not high enough on our priority list. We are too busy building to take much time for this.

Fourth, most of the false accusations that are written or told about us are so ridiculous that they will be easily discerned by those who have the Spirit of Truth, and who walk by faith, not by fear.

For example (and I will use this space to address one of the false accusations), one thing that is now being spread is that I am a high ranking member of the Masons. ...

I confess that I am still amazed by the things that some Christians get carried away with, and how easily some believe the worst about others. It is time for us to mature, and wake up to the fact that those who spread slander about other Christians are far more dangerous than the Masons. As it is stated in II Peter 3:14-18:

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness,

but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

This essay cannot be construed as a "false accusation" (much of what I wrote can be documented or supported from THE FINAL QUEST or from Scripture), and hopefully those at MorningStar have not ignored it or dismissed it as such. As best as I know, it was one of the first serious, lengthy critiques of THE FINAL QUEST to be published on the Internet. Any readers who have inside or close connections with persons at MorningStar are welcome to send this to them for a response, which I will be glad to post.

Some other reviews/critiques of THE FINAL QUEST can be found at the following sites:

THE FINAL QUEST - Reviewed by Richard Engstrom.

Rick Joyner’s "THE FINAL QUEST" - Is It Scripturally Sound? - W. B. Howard and T. Hardwick

The opinions expressed in these other reviews are the authors' own, and I may not fully agree with everything they write—as they might not fully agree with everything I write.

One respondent to my review was David L. Zaitzeff. He offered his own comments, which he gave me permission to post on this site.

For those who think it is improper for me to write this critique of Joyner, or to publish it publicly, rather than to address Joyner privately on this matter (apparently overlooking or ignoring the fact that I have sent this material to Joyner and have received no response), I submit the following from a Web page that critiques popular Christian author Gene Edwards. I personally am not attacking or criticizing Edwards. Indeed, some of his writings had a decidedly positive impact many years ago on my spiritual life. But that does not exempt him from criticism any more than the positive impact THE FINAL QUEST has had on persons' lives and faith exempts Joyner from having his words and works examined. Again, I am not criticizing Gene Edwards here, but am only reproducing part of an essay another person wrote to defend the validity of his articles that, like my review here, are critical of the works of a public minister.

From: http://www.angelfire.com/ia/BereanInquirer/GeneEdwardsIntro.html

The Berean Inquirer

What's Wrong With Gene Edwards?

Introduction to a Series of articles Regarding the Erroneous Doctrines and Unscriptural Practices of a 20th Century False Apostle

...

Are Criticisms Appropriate?

Before going on with this introduction, a caveat is in order. As the pages in this series are for the specific purpose of highlighting what are ostensibly some very serious errors in Edwards' theology and practice of the church, some may think these articles are too negative. Others will argue that I should first confront Edwards privately about my concerns, before articulating them publicly. Still others will no doubt suggest that it is wrong to rebuke or criticize brethren in any format in which an unbeliever could observe it. And then there will be those who, believing Edwards to be an apostle, will argue that it is wrong to contend with the Lord's appointed. I would like to respond to each of these concerns in order.

Those who think I am too negative should consider this: if you are not deeply familiar with Edwards' teachings and practices pertaining to the churches it is understandable that you may feel that my criticism of his doctrines is overly harsh. But, as a friend of mine — a former pastor in a cultishly rigid denomination — has observed, "Someone who was totally ignorant of the religion and hypocrisy of the Pharisees might read one of Jesus's rebukes of them, knowing nothing else, and think, 'My, how unsparingly critical and condemning of these men He is!'; while another man, being intimately familiar with their ways, could read the same rebuke, and say to himself, 'My, how did He restrain His tongue in dealing with those vipers?!'"

However, if you are one of Edwards' disciples or an ardent fan of his, though you may be deeply familiar with his ecclesiology — just like many of those who have only a slight acquaintance with his doctrines — you also may find these articles excoriatingly critical. That is, perhaps, unfortunate, but sadly it is not something I can prevent. Regardless, it is not my intention to wound the many dear saints who place their faith in Edwards' leadership, nor is it my goal to be personal in my criticisms; rather, my desire is to warn all who would listen about Edwards' religious deviance, and to uphold Jesus Christ as Lord in His churches — only as the church yields to His will, as it is revealed in the New Testament, can it truly be said that He is the focus of our meetings.

To those who think that I should confront Edwards privately about my concerns before publishing them for all to read, it must be asked, On what basis do you insist on this? There is no evidence that our Lord privately confronted the Pharisees with their false doctrines and unscriptural practices; All of His criticisms appear to have been made publicly, and not all of them to His adversaries' faces, even. Likewise, did Peter go to Ananias and Sapphira, privately, before confronting them before witness? (Acts 5:1-11) There certainly is no evidence of that. Nor did Paul privately share his concerns with Peter, that this member of the Twelve had become guilty of impugning the church of Christ, before rebuking him publicly (Gal. 2:11). Of course, in this latter case, some would suggest that the "face to face" rebuke was actually done as a private matter; but if it was, Paul made no bones about subsequently airing it for all to read, and he said absolutely nothing about Peter's response to his rebuke, besides!

For those who feel that any criticisms that are made in any format in which unbelievers might easily observe, again, the question must be asked, Where do you get such a notion? What authority is there for such an idea? Our Lord ministered under the Old Covenant, yet he was publicly critical of the religious leaders of his day; He spoke against the priests, the Pharisees, the scribes, and the Sadducees. He went into the temple, in full view of the Roman guard, and drove the money makers out with a whip! (Hmm. Talk about harsh.) Furthermore, it is apparent from the New Testament that it was not entirely unusual for unbelievers to be present among the saints, even in the meetings of the church (1 Cor. 14:23); so, really, the idea of a format that is public to the church but not available to unbelievers isn't feasible.

Indeed, the church — the true church, not the organizations we call churches — is not hurt by the exposure of scoundrels and charlatans in her midst, let alone by the public criticism of false teaching that goes on in the name of the Lord. If she were, the gates of hell would have prevailed the moment Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg church! If anything, it is the church's ability to be forthright about her problems and failings that is appealing to honest inquirers. It is false religion that hides its dirty laundry; honest religion is not afraid to be open and vulnerable.

For those who think that Edwards is an apostle, and that, as such, he should not be accused or criticized, and who would suggest that I am acting presumptuously to contend with the Lord's appointed man, I challenge both his apostleship and the notion that apostleship makes a man above accountability for what he teaches and how he leads. It has already been observed, how Paul rebuked Peter; yet, it may be argued that Paul was an apostle, too, and that therefore it was not presumptuous of him to do this. Still, there is no sure standard or canon that says apostles may not be criticized or rebuked by non-apostles.

Paul's instruction, regardless of who is teaching, is that we should "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess. 5:21). In the same vein, John tells us to "test the spirits, to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1). How is this to be done? Well, in his Acts of the Apostles, Luke commends the Jews at Berea for being neither cynical nor naive regarding Paul's Gospel; for, although they received his words "with great joy," they also began "examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were [really] so" (Acts 17:11). Thus, it appears that the only safe way to know the truth, is, not to depend on apostleship, but to depend on the Word of God.

Having explained to you the nature of these articles, then, and why I have not yielded to some of the popular sentiments against this kind of writing, let me continue with my introduction to Gene Edwards and his teachings and practices concerning the function of the church.

Some general thoughts from my first brief reading of THE FINAL QUEST:

• People may be impressed to walk by or seek these types of experiences instead of depending more on sound Scripture study.

• Assuming Rick Joyner is actually having these experiences, I wonder if these are real trances (whether induced by God or some other spirit) whose content he has no control over, or if they are examples of lucid dreaming which he could be semiconsciously "guiding" or "directing."

• Paul heard things that it was not lawful to speak of when he was caught up into paradise and experienced visions and revelations. Joyner freely and in great detail describes lots of things. Prophets in the Bible sometimes did have vivid and detailed visions, so there is not necessarily anything wrong with this. It seems to me, though, that this book is quite descriptive (maybe too descriptive?) about subjects that Scripture is rather reticent about.

I do not take issue with everything Joyner says or writes. There are some good comments and insights offered in this book about spiritual growth, exalting Jesus, considering the effects of what one does or does not do in this life, etc. (though I'm not sure that a "vision" is necessary for one to comprehend or teach such things), e.g.:

"Even the judgments of God are to be desired, because all of His ways are perfect." (p. 83)

"Everything that you do to exalt yourself will one day bring you the most terrible humiliation. Everything that you do out of true love for the Savior, to glorify His name, will extend the limits of His eternal kingdom, and ultimately will result in a much higher place for yourself. Live for what is recorded here. Care nothing for what is recorded on earth." (p. 102)

On balance, however, I think that readers should not accept the book wholeheartedly and undiscerningly, and I believe that the objections and concerns I express here can be sufficiently documented from the book (and from Scripture, where appropriate) so that my criticisms won't seem unwarranted or unreasonable. Since I am primarily writing about what I perceive to be problems or errors, much here will be negative. As I've mentioned, the Christian buying public is already saying many good things about this book. The reader will have to decide if it should indeed receive such positive acceptance.

A book I would recommend in preference to THE FINAL QUEST that is along the same lines but is much more biblically based and far less fantastic (e.g., the author says it's a work of fiction, unlike Joyner's questionable claim that his book describes real events; the author says that his book is the result of many years' study of and reflection upon the Scriptures, unlike Joyner who claims he got his "visions" while in a spiritual "trance") is THE BEMA by Tim Stevenson.

Rather than deal with the subject matter of the book topic by topic, I have chosen to review it by reading it "straight through," citing page references and making comments specific to that page or those pages. This will allow the reader to judge Joyner's statements and my comments in their proper context. (I have been urged to write some summarizing or concluding statements, and I may do so in the future.)

INTRODUCTION

Rick Joyner uses Hebrews 13:8 ("Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever") as a sort of "proof text" or supporting scripture for his claim that the kind of experience that engendered this book is found throughout church history because God "has never ceased" relating to us in these ways. Without taking issue statement, it seems to me that this is a misapplication of Hebrews 13:8—especially since the book of Hebrews seems to be written to people who are not experiencing these things, nor are being told to expect such things, but are rather being encouraged to persevere based on the testimony and words and lives of those to whom God had confirmed His word in past times by such experiences (Hebrews 2:1-4).

His assertion that dreams and visions and prophecy "are becoming increasingly common" in our day is made without any substantiating evidence. Perhaps among his acquaintances and in the circles in which he travels Joyner has noticed an increase in these things. As it stands, though, Joyner's statement is unproven and maybe unprovable. I think readers should be cautious about accepting statements like these uncritically.

p. 9

A minor point: Joyner states that he became a Christian in 1972, and later states that he had prayed for 25 years to be caught up to the third heaven like the apostle Paul (pp. 44-45). In an excerpt from "The Hordes of Hell Are Marching," which was the original version of THE FINAL QUEST (available at http://www.harvestnet.org/lookback/hordesofhell.htm) and taken from The Morning Star Journal Vol.5 No.2-4 © 1995, 1996), Joyner states that he had prayed this for "26" years. When I checked the dates and articles of The Morning Star Journal on Joyner's former web site, http://www.eaglestar.org, it appeared that this part of the vision (Part II of THE FINAL QUEST) was reported in 1995, and at the beginningof this excerpt, Joyner in fact writes: "This is a panoramic dream and vision I received in early 1995." Yet, if this had been Joyner's prayer for 25 or 26 years, his conversion would have had to have been in 1970 or 1969—unless he had begun praying for this before he was a Christian, or unless he had meant "approximately 25 (26) years," or unless his dates or years are incorrect.

[Note: Joyner has since moved MorningStar's Web site to: http://www.morningstarministries.org (also at http://www.eaglestar.org/). Many of the articles are no longer posted there, but some of the old MorningStar articles can be read at: http://theheresy.com/.]

pp. 9-14 [revised October 23, 1999]

Joyner seems to categorize and rank the levels of prophetic revelation as:

1. "'Prophetic 'impressions'," which can be affected by our own feelings, prejudices, and doctrines. These can include visions which are seen with "the eyes of our heart" (a phrase which recurs throughout the book).

2. "The next level," which is a conscious sense of the Lord's presence or the anointing of the Holy Spirit, which Joyner says "was probably experienced by the apostles as they wrote the New Testament epistles", but which can still be influenced by one's "prejudices, doctrines, etc."

3. "A higher level than impressions," i.e., "open visions," which Joyner believes have "far less possibility of mixture."

4. "Another higher level prophetic experience" of "trance" (e.g., Peter before going to Cornelius' house - Acts 10:10; Paul in the temple - Acts 22:17; and possibly Ezekiel's visions and John's visions in The Revelation).

It is not clear if 4. is to be ranked higher than 3., but both 3. and 4. seem to be ranked as higher "levels" than 2. Joyner states about the content of THE FINAL QUEST that "the overwhelming majority was received in some level of a trance," which would correspond to level or category 4. above. He also states that he doesn't know how this knowledge came to him.

My concerns are:

1. Joyner's use of Paul's statement "the eyes of our heart" seems to be inappropriate. Joyner relegates such knowledge to the lowest levels of prophetic revelation, whereas there is no such sense to me in Ephesians 1:18 ("the eyes of your heart being enlightened") that this is only a lower or beginning stage of revelation when one considers what Paul writes should be comprehended by one who has had the eyes of his heart enlightened. Nor do I sense that Paul was talking about "inner visions" as Joyner seems to imply. (Since they are not "external" as the higher-level "open visions" are said to be, these "visions" must be inner/internal.) Joyner's concept of "the eyes of our heart" is repeated and developed through the book in a way that, in my opinion, makes the concept come close to an unscriptural form of mysticism.

2. Joyner's statement about the second "level" of revelation is:

   I believe that this was probably experienced by the apostles as they wrote the New Testament epistles.

   His statement about his visions and their relation to the fourth "level" or type of revelation is:

   The visions contained in this book all began with a dream. Some of it came under a very intense sense of the presence of the Lord, but the overwhelming majority was received in some level of a trance.

   It is not clear in his comments about the second "level" if Joyner means that all the New Testament epistles were written in their entirety at this second level of revelation, or if only some of the epistles, or only parts of some or all of the epistles, were written from this level of revelation. If Joyner means the former, then one would conclude that he is establishing his visions as being a higher level of revelation than much of the New Testament. If he means the latter, then one would conclude that he is still establishing his visions as being a higher level of revelation than possibly a good portion of the New Testament. Later on he seemingly even has the apostle Paul contradicting or denigrating his own Holy-Spirit-anointed writings.

   Joyner states on pp.12-13,14:

   I must state emphatically that I do not believe that any kind of prophetic revelation is for the purpose of establishing doctrine. We have the Scriptures for that. There are two basic uses for the prophetic. The first is for revealing the present or future strategic will of the Lord in certain matters.... We also see such revelations being given for illuminating doctrine that is taught in the Scripture, but is not clearly seen.... Only the Scriptures deserve to be considered infallible.

   This to me is altogether confusing, for it is hard to understand how Joyner can simultaneously 1) claim that only the Scriptures are infallible, yet place his revelations on par with at least some of the Scriptures and deny that he is making or implying that claim for them; 2) say or imply that writings that he claims are infallible (i.e., the Scriptures) were at least in part written at a level that can be influenced by one's prejudices and doctrines; and 3) use his visions to put forth doctrines, or interpretations of doctrines, that to many readers are at variance with the Scripture that Joyner calls "infallible"—and at the same time say that prophetic revelation is not for the purpose of establishing doctrine.

3. Joyner states that he does not know how his "greatly magnified gifts of discernment and words of knowledge" came to him. Joyner may be meaning that he doesn't know the means or mechanism whereby they came to him. His terms ("gifts of discernment and words of knowledge"), given the context, are probably implicitly to be understood by the readers as meaning revelation from the Lord or the Holy Spirit. His statement to me, though, could open him to the charge that the source of this knowledge may not be God, since he could be interpreted as saying that his source of knowledge is unidentified to him or unidentifiable by him.

p. 14

Joyner writes that "I was encouraged by some to write this as an allegory, in third person like THE PILGRIM'S PROGRESS, but I decided against it for several reasons." In the excerpt from "The Hordes of Hell Are Marching" that I earlier referenced (see comments on p. 9), Joyner prefaces the recounting of his vision by stating: "This is obviously allegorical, as are most dreams and visions." This qualifying statement does not, however, appear in THE FINAL QUEST, so it's not clear how Joyner views THE FINAL QUEST—i.e., is it real or is it allegorical?—or how he wants us to view it.

PART I - THE HORDES OF HELL ARE MARCHING

p. 16

Beginning with this page and throughout the vision, Joyner labels as demonic many things that the Scriptures describe as "works of the flesh" (Galatians 5:19-21). A reasonable scriptural argument can be made that such things are not demonic in origin but are rather due to the operation of sin in our flesh, which Paul says derives its power, not from demons but from the Law (Romans 7:7ff.; I Corinthians 15:56). If so, the answer for these things is not deliverance but "walking in accordance with the Spirit" (Romans 8; Galatians 5:16,18,25), "being renewed" and "putting on Christ" (Romans 12:1-2; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9-10), "walking in love," etc. It is probably true that continuation in certain sins can likely allow demonic elements to enter in and strengthen the hold of that sin in a person, even to the point where the person becomes "demonized," i.e., oppressed or controlled by demons, and indeed needs deliverance, not just a disciplined walk with the Lord. But if the things Joyner portrays as afflicting Christians are in many cases "sins of the flesh" rather than the operation of demons, the deception would not, as Joyner would have it, be Christians being unknowingly controlled by demons through their own pride, unforgiveness, lust, lack of love, etc., but would be Christians seeking the wrong remedy or being convinced to battle or seek deliverance from an imaginary (or the wrong) enemy because of reading and believing Joyner's "vision."

Though Joyner describes this as a "horde(s) from hell," do the Scriptures in fact teach that either demons or Satan come from hell and/or that, being in hell, they are able to leave hell to come to oppress persons on the earth?

p. 17

Joyner's statement about the demonic army "seeking to pre-empt a [great] coming move of God" seems to me to be an extravagant, unprovably-vague claim, the kind that unfortunately characterizes many "prophetic" pronouncements coming forth these days.

p. 19

Joyner says that Satan's ("the Accuser") strategy is to divide the church so it will "fall from grace." Paul's phrase "fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:4) does not mean what Joyner implies here. Believers do not "fall from grace" when they war with one another; they "fall from grace" when they seek to be justified by (the) law. This seems to be another instance of Scripture being misapplied or misused.

p. 26

Joyner here describes levels on a mountain he is climbing. Later in the book he elaborates on this so that the revealed order of the levels (from lower to higher) becomes:

SALVATION - the foundation (p. 51) SANCTIFICATION, PRAYER, FAITH (p. 26) THANKSGIVING AND PRAISE (p. 47) UNITY OF THE BRETHREN (p. 27) GALATIANS TWO TWENTY (p. 29) PATIENCE (p. 33)

There does not, however, seem to be a demonstrable logic to this order.

p. 30 [29-30]

Joyner makes a very strange (to me) claim, which is that those who appropriate the truth of Galatians 2:20 are the ones who are "entrusted with the powers of the age to come," a phrase that occurs only at Hebrews 6:5 (DUNAMEIS … MELLONTOS AIWNOS), though it may possibly be alluded to in Ephesians 1:21. Also, the idea here that believers are to be taught by angels (in this case, the one called "Love" from among the three angels "Faith, Hope and Love," first mentioned on p. 25) rather than by the Holy Spirit or human teachers seems more "New Age" or occult than biblical.

p. 34

Just a point of information: Joyner states that he saw the Tree of Life, still being guarded by "awesome" angels. The Scriptures state that the way to the Tree of Life was guarded by KeRuBiM (Genesis 3:24), the plural of KeRuB, a specific type of angelic being often depicted as having wings and the face of a man, as well as other faces (of beasts, etc.).

p. 35 [35-36]

Joyner's meeting and being greeted by Jesus strikes me as a little too friendly and folksy, though I know that in many cases of "inner healing" it has been claimed that Jesus appeared to persons in a friendly, parent-to-child or friend-to-friend manner. Jesus's words here about marching forth with the gospel of His Kingdom (see pp. 37-38) and about the eagles ("the prophets" who have heretofore been "hidden"—see p. 58) are significant in that they figure later on in the vision.

pp. 37-38

This "spiritual civil war" that Joyner describes God as preparing a special "leadership" to fight sounds more like a human or contemporary "politically correct" agenda ("women's rights," "racism," "exploitation") than God's eternal agenda.

The "leadership" that "the Lord is now preparing" seems to be related to what will later be revealed or described as the "prophets" (the eagles in this vision). One of the ideas coming forth from Joyner and associated ministries is that there will be a special anointed group of "prophets" who will best be able to hear from the Lord what His directions are for these last days, and that those who do not listen to these "prophets" will end up being deceived. See Bob Jones's "Shepherd's Rod" Yom Kippur message for 1997. It was formerly available at the MorningStar Web page, but I cannot now find it there, though the 1998 message is there. However, this 1997 message can be found at other Internet sites, e.g., Bob Jones's own site http://www.bobjones.org/srod/SR-97.htm. The many similarities and resemblances to things in THE FINAL QUEST seem to be more than coincidental. An average person would likely conclude that either the book/visions influenced the "prophecy" or the "prophecy" influenced the book/visions.

(At one time I was concerned that the messages coming from Joyner and the persons he associates with were part of a plot to set Christians up to subject themselves to (or to be subjected to) these "prophets." In light of the similarities between THE FINAL QUEST and some of these "prophecies," I now see it as possibly something less sinister, i.e., it could be that they talk with each other so much and read and hear so much of the same or similar material that their "prophecies" and "visions" may often be just subconscious "regurgitations" of things they have heard and read. Thus, what appear(s) to be independent "confirmation(s)" of a person's or persons' "prophetic word(s)" may possibly often be nothing more than imitation. On the other hand, the contemporary movement to exalt certain persons as God's "apostles" and "prophets" who are to "hear from God" for the rest of the body of Christ may prove this concern of mine to be a valid one.)

PART II - THE HOLY MOUNTAIN

The angel's and Wisdom's statements about seeing with "the eyes of your heart" and about God's garden being "in your heart," etc., sound more like a "New Age" teaching than a biblical one.

p. 44

Wisdom's statements about dreaming also sound more like a "New Age" understanding than a biblical one. This may also be a misinterpretation of the biblical concept and meaning of "heart," opposing it to man's "mind." In the Old Testament the two were not really opposed or different; indeed the "heart" of man referred to the whole man, i.e., his mind and emotions and inner life. (See THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (Harris, Archer, Waltke) Volume I, pp. 466-467.) In the New Testament, "heart" does seem to have more of this meaning of man's "inner life," the place where God reveals Himself to man. (See THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY (Brown) Volume 2, pp. 180-184.)

That man's "mind" is fallen but his "heart" is not seems to be contrary to biblical teaching. In fallen man, his entire being is "fallen" and affected by sin and sin's power. In a "saved" person, his "spirit" (heart?) is "new"/"renewed" and he/she also has "the mind of Christ." God can reach or teach a "saved" person through his mind just as well as through his "heart." Otherwise, the entire corpus of New Testament teachings is just a waste of ink on papyrus, and believers should not be told to study or read but instead should be told to "dream" so they can thus rightly hear and learn from God.

pp. 44-45 [45]

Joyner's idea that the "third heaven" is third in terms of time is novel and probably incorrect. The "third heaven," including referring to it (as Paul does in II Corinthians 12:2-4) as "paradise," has a number of references in ancient literature, e.g., Apocalypse of Moses, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Slavonic Enoch). (See A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker - i.e., 2nd Edition), p. 594.) That Paul, without so explaining, would mean "third heaven in terms of time" when his readers and contemporaries would likely understand it to mean "third heaven in terms of levels—i.e., above the second heaven and below the fourth heaven"—seems unlikely.

I see no biblical command or warrant, as Joyner prayed, that he or believers should seek to be caught up to or to know this "third heaven." Of course, given that he identifies (incorrectly, in my opinion) the "third heaven" with the kingdom of God, Joyner could justify a believer's need to seek to know it with Jesus's command to "Seek first His kingdom." That must be how he can justify Wisdom's statement that he and believers, in contrast to Paul, are also supposed to preach this "third heaven," for Paul, when he was caught up to the "third heaven," heard things which he says a man is not permitted to speak. That Paul did in fact preach the kingdom of God but said he was not permitted to speak of the things he heard in the "third heaven" seems to argue against one being able to equate the coming kingdom with a coming "third heaven." This long-sought desire for mystical experience ("I have prayed for twenty-five years to be caught up into the third heaven like the apostle Paul") rather than biblically-sanctioned knowledge could explain the source of this "vision": i.e., it was self-generated (an instance of wish fulfillment) or possibly even deceptive in origin.

I find it peculiar that he is not told details about the "first heaven" (i.e., life before the fall of man). This seems rather convenient, since it "prevents" Joyner from saying and writing things that might show this revelation to be purely speculative and/or bogus instead of true, revealed knowledge on the highest prophetic level as he claims it to be.

p. 46

This mind/heart dichotomy ("It is not by believing in your mind, but in your heart that results in righteousness"), which promotes a "mindless" spirituality, is to me a distortion of Scripture, including the verse (Romans 10:9) that Joyner's statement about "believing … in your heart" refers to (which can just as well be translated as "believe with your heart"—Paul's statements in Romans 10:6-10 play off the semantic range of the Greek word EN, which can mean "in" or "with" or "by," but it's almost impossible to convey this in an English translation). Jesus says we are to love God with all our heart, soul and mind (Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27 add "strength"). In other words, we are to love God with all we are and with all we have. Romans 10 says that whoever trusts ("believes") in the Lord will be justified and saved. I believe the kind of trust the Lord wants us to have in Him is not a "heart" thing that is in contrast to intelligent assent, but rather that both are to be involved. To dissuade the believer from using his mind seems to me to open him up to spiritual deception by having him embrace a non-scriptural mysticism.

pp. 49-50 [50]

Joyner treats Wisdom's statement "You enter His gates with thanksgiving, His courts with praise" as if the Scripture he is basing it on (Psalm 100:4) is explaining the instrumentality or means whereby one "enters in." However, it is clear from the rest of the Psalm (esp. 100:1-3a) that "enter" is a command, an imperative (which is what it is grammatically in both the Hebrew and the Greek (Septuagint) texts). That is, we are to be thanking and praising Him as we enter His gates and courts; that is to be our attitude and behavior. Thanking and praising Him do not open His gates and courts to us or bring us into them. This is another misuse of Scripture. Surely the angel Wisdom (who is later (p. 55) revealed to be the Lord Jesus Himself) would know better. Not only are believers here being encouraged to seek sensual mystical experiences ("You can enter Paradise at anytime"), but they are also implicitly being encouraged to distort Scripture or to accept such distortions.

p. 51

My question about the mantel (sic) Joyner receives is: Does God give us a mantel of humility (also see pp. 66 and 68 regarding this mantel), or is it rather an attitude that we are to adopt and cultivate in keeping with our new life and nature (Ephesians 4:2; Philippians 2:3; Colossians 3:12)? Note: Joyner later spells "mantel" as "mantle."

p. 56

Joyner has an angel tell him that "everyone in heaven and hell recognizes" the mantle that Joyner is wearing. I asked this question earlier (p. 16): Are there beings now in hell?

PART III - THE RETURN OF THE EAGLES

This lengthy section explains the eagles (see p. 35) more fully. According to these passages, the eagles represent prophets of the Lord who:

• have divinely powerful weapons to assist believers
• know all that needs to be known about the believers' battle with the enemy
• can only help those who trust ("believe") in them and receive them as prophets
• will awaken believers' gifts and teach them how to use them
• grow in strength in proportion to the extent that they overcome the enemy
• define the Father's will to be destroying the works of the devil
• bring believers into unified, true worship

Also, Wisdom (the Lord Jesus) speaks through these prophets, and Joyner confesses to the eagle that he needs to depend on the prophets because the Lord (Wisdom) speaks much clearer ("louder") through them than Joyner is able to hear for himself.

The implications of this series of "conversations" seems to me to be that believers are going to have to become dependent upon a special anointed group of "prophets" who will have the understanding and power to help them battle the enemy. I find this a bit disturbing and frankly outside the bounds of New Testament teaching. This same idea is clearly reflected and repeated in Jones's "Shepherd's Rod" Yom Kippur message for 1997 (http://www.bobjones.org/srod/SR-97.htm) which I previously referred to (see my comments on pp. 37-38).

Joyner does not give the man's/eagle's name, even though he says it was a person he met soon after his [Joyner's] conversion. Perhaps that is because the man is still living and he does not want to embarrass him, though a statement Joyner makes elsewhere (p. 107—"I was amazed to recognize this man as a contemporary of mine, and I did not know that he had died") implies that all those he meets in this vision have died. Joyner meets several other people in this vision who are no longer living, yet he never gives their names (except for the apostle Paul). I can comprehend no valid reason for him not to give their names and be more specific—unless it might be because what he claims about their lives would then be able to be confirmed or refuted by others' perceptions and knowledge of these people. Is this an indication that this "vision" is perhaps less supernatural than it purports to be?

If the eagles ("prophets") are indeed dead Christians, then Joyner could be implying that God's people need to receive direction from the spirits of the deceased (and it could also imply that those whom Joyner and his associates are currently holding forth as God's "prophets" are actually channeling the spirits of these deceased persons). How dead persons are to help the living in this "last battle" against Satan and his demons is perplexing to me. It does, however, seem that some of the people in this "vision" are living (i.e., the Christians that Joyner sees fighting and being attacked by the demons), though some are dead (i.e., those Joyner meets in the course of his "vision" who help him along on his spiritual quest/adventure). I'd hate to add necromancy to the list of unscriptural or quasi-scriptural practices Joyner seems to be encouraging the church to engage in.

In an interview located on the Internet at http://www.hispraise.com/MorningStar/r_joyner.htm, Joyner states in answer to a question about the eagles: "I think the Eagles are definitely people, especially, I felt, that they represented hidden but deeply experienced men and women of God who had just spiritually soared in the high places with the Lord and had grown very close to Him and His nature, but are still very hidden away. Just like eagles very seldom flock together, these are found individually and in small groups around, but they know the Lord well and they are going to be seen and revealed in due time." This would indicate that the eagles are living persons.

p. 67

Joyner's statements about the doors and the treasures sound like they come from Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS or a fantasy novel or a "New Age" quest-adventure book. I suppose there might be passages in Proverbs or elsewhere that might suggest that such treasures are in our "heart" and that we collect more treasures as we reach higher levels (kind of like a ZORK or King's Quest computer game!), but I tend to think that all the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ (Colossians 2:3), and that they will stay in Christ, rather than us being or becoming "the treasure house of God."

p. 74

Joyner's exchange with the leader of the angels seems to imply that one should come to a place where one's inner witness based on one's experiences would be a surer guide than the Scriptures (note that no reference is made here or hardly anywhere else in this vision to turning to the written word for guidance). This seems to go hand in hand with the teachings elsewhere in this vision that one is to rely upon revelations of God's special prophets for one's safety and salvation. In my opinion, a dangerous departure from the written canonical testimony of God and the church is being encouraged.

PART IV - THE WHITE THRONE

The discussion about being wounded in order to heal others initially sounds like the typical Pentecostal or Charismatic interpretation of I Peter 2:24 ("by His wounds/stripes (KJV) you were healed"), which in turn is based on Isaiah 53:5. The context of I Peter 2 and Isaiah 53, however, is spiritual healing (i.e., our relationship with God was healed by Jesus bearing the judgment for our sins), not physical healing from sickness, disease, etc. Joyner goes on to explain that healing includes "being saved, healed, or restored," so in a sense he does not violate the meaning of I Peter 2:24. His conclusion that "Every wound that every warrior takes will result in others being saved, healed, or restored" may be speculative, though.

p. 86 [86-87]

This suggestion that Joyner and Christians today are (or are supposed to be) engaged in "the last battle" and that the times we are living in are THE "last days," etc., is a recurrent theme. This is not the time or the place to analyze the eschatalogical emphases and doctrines of Joyner and the "prophetic" ministries he associates with (nor am I qualified to do so), but I am not surprised that his "vision" seems to corroborate his theology or what I've gleaned it to be from reading The Morning Star Journal and The Morning Star Prophetic Bulletin.

Again, Joyner supposedly meets someone he knew on earth, yet he does not identify the man. This idea of meeting beings in the afterlife whom we identify with persons on earth is one that is very popular in occult and "New Age" and "near-death experience" books and accounts, but I'm not sure how strong a biblical case can be made for such things. An implication one could derive from Paul's statements in I Corinthians 15:35-44 is that the resurrection body is so very much different from the earthly body that one might be hard-pressed to connect a resurrected being with his earthly form, and hence our after-life existence (whether pre- or post-resurrection) might be unrecognizable and indescribable in earthly terms. On the other hand, Jesus refers to sitting at table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11), Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus in recognizable form at Jesus's transfiguration (Matthew 17:3), the final judgment in Revelation seems to involve recognizable persons (Revelation 20:11-15), etc., so it may very well be true that after this life we will see and recognize people we had known on earth.

p. 87

Whether Joyner intends it or not, the implication about not knowing on earth what heaven and hell are like is that the written revelation of God, i.e., the Scriptures, is inadequate for conveying to living persons what awaits them after this life. Thus, the "visions" of those like himself who have been "blessed" (as the man says of Joyner) to see these things while they are still living are considered to be a surer guide to post-life realities.

pp. 89-90

Regarding Joyner's interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins in the conversation he relates, I find the statement that the oil in the virgins' lamps was "the oil of the Holy Spirit" (i.e., meaning, I assume, either the Holy Spirit himself (genitive of apposition or genitive of content) or something the Holy Spirit gives (genitive of source) or owns (possessive genitive)) to be speculative. Indeed, the details of the parable (the virgins can take or forget to take oil, one's oil can be shared with or given to another person, such oil can be bought from oil dealers, etc.) actually seem to argue against interpreting it as Joyner has. Joyner's statement (confirmed by the man he was speaking with) that "The foolish virgins gnashed their teeth in the outer darkness" is reading into this parable something Jesus said elsewhere (e.g., Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 25:30), but not about the foolish virgins (Matthew 25:1-13).

p. 91

Joyner again builds on the theme that he and today's Christians are regarded by the heavenly host as fighting "the last battle" (see my earlier comments on p. 86 about this).

p. 92

Again Joyner sees another person he recognizes, whom he goes on to describe as having rejected Joyner when God had called him to disciple and help Joyner. Joyner also describes (or has the man describe) this man's failures, sins and faults which contrasted with his great (as the church world perceived them) accomplishments. Again, Joyner does not name or identify this person.

pp. 95-101

On these pages it appears that Joyner is having a conversation with, I assume, either Martin Luther or John Calvin and his wife ("the famous Reformer," Joyner calls him). I see no reason why Joyner doesn't explicitly name him or them—they are certainly long dead and immune to anything he could say about them.

p. 106

These comments about veils being removed make this "vision" of Joyner's sound more like a "warrior quest" fantasy/fiction novel than a biblical experience. His appropriation (or, rather, misappropriation) of II Corinthians 3:15-18 fails at several points, in my opinion: 1) Paul writes that we are now able to view the Lord with unveiled faces; it's not something that happens after we die and "come to the true judgments of God"; 2) the veil is removed by turning to the Lord, not by encountering persons in some mystical "corridor" who help remove it; 3) it is while (or because) we are beholding (or reflecting) the glory of the Lord that we are changed into the same image (probably by the Lord, since the passive voice is used; even though in Greek the passive is identical in the present tense with the middle voice, the context clearly favors the passive, not the middle, voice, and no translations give it a middle rendering, i.e., "we are transforming ourselves").

p. 107

Again Joyner encounters another "famous" person whom he fails to name. Joyner goes on and has the man describe his sins and faults, even so far as saying that the Lord let him be struck by a humiliating disease—but that just before he died he repented. The man asks Joyner to go back and "warn my disciples of their impending doom if they do not repent" (he had incited them to hostile and destructive attitudes and actions against ministers he was jealous of) (p. 109). I guess this book is Joyner's "warning," but if Joyner was really serious, I would think that he would name the man and expose the sins this man committed or caused others to commit so that his disciples would indeed know about these things and repent.

Even though Joyner uses these dead-person "encounters" and "confessions" to point out where Joyner himself has the same (or greater) faults, there seems to be something self-serving about it all. In the same way that one can draw too much attention to one's self by making too much of one's sins, these "encounters" with famous personages seem to have the (unintentional?) effect of exalting Joyner by having him 1) "go on record" as actually meeting all these people, or 2) "reveal their deep, dark secrets" that no other human or historian ever knew, or 3) confess each time to being "a worse sinner than they are." It gets a little tiresome and predictable.

pp. 111-114

Regarding the remarks made in this "encounter," I wonder if Joyner will, upon meeting the Lord, want to (like this man) take his own writings like THE FINAL QUEST and grind them into powder? My previous comment about these "encounters" inadvertently(?) or unintentionally(?) exalting Joyner applies here, too.

pp. 114-115

Again, why does Joyner not give the names of these many other men and women of God whom he stopped and talked with, and who helped remove his veils?

This is a technical quibble, but it's interesting that Joyner includes [married] couples among "the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes," since the Bible describes such ones as those "who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins" (Revelation 14:4). (Of course, John's vision could be symbolic on this point!)

pp. 119-120

There is something about this scene of Joyner drinking Jesus's cup that bothers me, but I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps it's the "humanness" of the Lord, or the comaraderie or familiarity Joyner portrays Himself as having with Jesus. His "intimacy" with the Lord strikes me as being more in line with the sensibilities and sensitivities of this age than with the portrayals of human-Divine interaction I read about in the Scriptures.

pp. 121-122

Joyner sees the Lord stand up in preparation for "the last battle," and an angel tells him that Jesus will not sit down again until the battle is over. However, Matthew 22:44 indicates that the Lord is to remain seated at God's right side until God puts His enemies under His feet (or "makes them a stool for" His feet—Hebrew (Psalm 110:1) and Greek/Septuagint (Psalm 109:1) texts, and Hebrews 1:13, quoting the Septuagint). There is no indication I can see that the Lord is to stand just prior to this event and remain standing until it is accomplished (in which case the Scripture would read: "Sit at My right side until I am ready to put Your enemies under Your feet").

PART V - THE OVERCOMERS

I do not understand this promise of greater power—said to be much greater than the "token"-like powers of the biblical CARISMATA—that Jesus says the church must know in order to be messengers of the age to come. It's interesting to compare this with what Jones says in his 1997 Yom Kippur "prophecy" at http://www.bobjones.org/srod/SR-97.htm about the "token":

THE GIVING OF THE TOKEN

WHO MAY ASCEND INTO THE HILL OF THE LORD? AND WHO MAY STAND IN HIS HOLY PLACE? HE WHO HAS CLEAN HANDS AND A PURE HEART WHO HAS NOT LIFTED UP HIS SOUL TO FALSEHOOD AND HAS NOT SWORN DECEITFULLY. (PSALM 24:3-4)

This invitation from the Lord is to gain admission into the temple of His presence. History records that the 40's and 50's experienced a sovereign move of God touching the entire world. Yet this move of His Spirit was only a token of what He plans to do during this generation. The coming government or five-fold ministry will have "a golden word" to speak to the church necessary to sanctify the church in preparation for this divine invitation into His presence.

Joyner again posits a heart/mind dichotomy or distinction (opposition?) that may be unscriptural. See my comments on pp. 44, 46 about this.

I think this definition of deception as involving "anything that you do not understand as I [i.e., Jesus] do" is unbiblical. Paul states in I Corinthians 13:9 that our prophecies and knowledge are partial and not complete—hence we do not and cannot prophesy or give words of knowledge with the full understanding that the Lord has—but he never refers to human utterances by the Holy Spirit as "deception." For Christians to accept this definition of deception would mean that nothing they think, do, hear and say can be trusted, since it's all "deception"—and the so-called "grace" that Joyner (i.e., Jesus) says that God will give them to deal with their total deception is to constantly remind them of the totality of their deception, in order to keep them "humble"—so they can get more such "grace" to really keep them "humble." (So what are they to do—turn to "God's anointed prophets," or to persons like Joyner who have had "visions" of what God knows, to give them a sure word and sure direction?)

pp. 131-137

Beginning with this repeated emphasis or implication that Joyner and his contemporaries are the key generation in God's timetable (a not-so-subtle form of self-exaltation that is getting old), Joyner now meets the apostle Paul.

This section should cause the reader to seriously question Joyner's claim that the contents of THE FINAL QUEST came from legitimate, God-given "visions." I don't know which disturbs me more—that Joyner would put this forth as a genuine vision from God and/or actually believe that this was a vision from God, or that despite this section (or maybe because of it) tens of thousands of Christians are loving and recommending this book. You can read some of these ecstatic "reader reviews" of THE FINAL QUEST at Amazon Books:

or

Typical of reader response to THE FINAL QUEST is a review I found on the Internet from a pastor, who states: "… everyone who has read it, within my circle of friends, have been tremendously impacted by the depth and clarity of revelation—I have seen weeping and repentance over different issues as God has applied the truths to different lives … the description of heaven made me weep over wasted opportunities and wrong reactions in my own life and ministry. … I recommend that every leader should read it. It will spur you on to a greater passion for Jesus, a greater desire to be holy and a greater longing for his Kingdom to come." (http://www.christianbooks.co.uk/finalquest.htm - this link may no longer work)

Though it doesn't surprise me, it does grieve me that many in the Charismatic church have embraced and welcomed this book, seemingly without examination. In the transcript of an interview with Joyner at http://www.hispraise.com/MorningStar/r_joyner.htm in which he elucidates some points about THE FINAL QUEST, Joyner comments on the great number of copies that are being sold and its generally positive reception by Christians. Search engine results on the Internet show that it is a "bestseller" in many Christian markets.

For Joyner to prove that this was a genuine encounter with the apostle Paul, he should have had Paul answer some real questions, e.g.: What was Paul's "thorn in the flesh"? How are the events in Galatians to be reconciled chronologically with the Acts accounts? Was the Cephas that Paul rebuked at Antioch the apostle Peter, as is commonly believed, or another person, as some in the early church believed? What is Paul's position on women speaking in church, teaching men, holding office, etc. (i.e., his statements in I Corinthians 14:34ff., I Timothy 2:11ff., etc.)? What is or what became of the Laodicean letter (Colossians 4:16)—i.e., is it what we now call Ephesians? Which of the letters ascribed to him did Paul actually write or dictate? How should one punctuate or grammatically diagram the Greek of Ephesians 1?

In the movie OH, GOD!, the ministers tested John Denver's claim of seeing and speaking with God by locking him alone in a hotel room to answer some real theological questions—written in ancient Aramaic, too, so he couldn't cheat. I don't think it's too much to ask that Joyner provide some demonstrable proof that he talked with Paul—e.g., good answers to some of these theological questions which have plagued Pauline scholars for generations—before we accept his word on the matter. On page 37 Joyner references one of these issues, namely, the church's struggles with women's rights. Since this problem is largely a result of what Paul did and didn't write or explain, for Joyner not to ask the apostle about this, or, worse, to evade this and any other significant issue by having Paul tell Joyner that "I can only say to you now what I have already said to you through my writings," suggests to me that he never met Paul, and that this encounter, and probably the rest of the book, is a delusion or a false or deceptive vision, if it is not in fact fraudulent. I am more inclined to believe that Whitley Strieber's self-described alien encounters in COMMUNION (and subsequent books) actually occurred than to believe that Joyner's "vision" is as legitimate as he claims it is (Strieber says his books are non-fiction, and the publisher promotes them as such).

Joyner has Paul say that he walked "in so little" of what he "had been given … to understand." Yet this same Paul, who also stated to Joyner that his "letters were true" and "written by the anointing of the Holy Spirit," told his readers: "be imitators of me" (I Corinthians 4:16); "be imitators of me, just as I also am [an imitator] of Christ" (I Corinthians 11:1); "join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us" (Philippians 3:17); "The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things" (Philippians 4:9); "you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. You also became imitators of us and of the Lord … so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia" (I Thessalonians 1:5-7); and "in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example" (II Thessalonians 3:9). Joyner cannot argue that these statements come from Paul's early days when he wasn't yet aware that he was "the greatest of sinners," since two of these statements come from Philippians, which "is probably to be placed late in Paul's imprisonment (A.D. 60-62)" (COMMENTARY ON PHILIPPIANS, New International Greek Testament Commentary, Peter T. O'Brien, Eerdmans 1991, p. 26). From start to finish, Paul urged his readers to be imitators of him. If, as Joyner suggests, Paul was being disingenuous or downright dishonest about this, then he also probably lied about his letters "being written by the anointing of the Holy Spirit," and hence nothing in them is to be trusted.

I also find it hard to believe that Paul would actually know and think about himself as Joyner portrays him as doing and not say it in his writings, but rather would hold back "the truth" until Joyner gets to meet him more than 1900 years later. That Paul and God would allow the church to operate under such a misconception for so long is incredulous. I guess we should be grateful that, thanks to Joyner, we now can know "the truth" about Paul and can quit being deceived.

Joyner has Paul describe himself as progressing from "feeling that I was not inferior to even the most imminent (sic) [i.e., eminent] apostles … to finally realizing that I was the greatest of sinners." This "statement" is based on: II Corinthians 12:11 ("for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles"); I Corinthians 15:9 ("For I am the least of the apostles"); Ephesians 3:8 ("To me, the very least of all saints"); and I Timothy 1:15 ("Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all"). It's odd that the apostle would place II Corinthians before I Corinthians in what is supposedly a chronological progression. But maybe it's not so odd if what we have here are not Paul's words but Joyner's.

Paul tells Joyner that he "was entrusted with much, much more than I used." But this seems to be belied by Paul's statement in II Timothy (which I think Joyner would hold to be one of his last letters, since he has Paul stating his final evaluation of himself in I Timothy—i.e., that he "was the greatest of sinners") that "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day" (II Timothy 4:7-8). This is the Paul who earlier stated in I Corinthians 9:27: "but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified." The Paul of II Timothy expresses no concern that he might be disqualified. Joyner's unsupportable (to me) putdown of the apostle seems only for the purpose of exalting Joyner.

Joyner has Paul say that his "life and ministry are not the example of what [we] are called to be." If that's true, then all the statements I quoted above from Paul's letters exhorting his readers to imitate him and use him as an example are false. Joyner, by suggesting that the content of his "vision" was God-given and God-inspired, is establishing himself as a higher authority than the apostle. If Paul, as Joyner is teaching us, admitted at the end of his life (or, rather, according to Joyner, after his life) that he had lied about his life and actions and motives, will we also be treated somewhere down the years to Joyner confessing that his own writings and visions were likewise lies?

By having Paul say that Joyner's generation is the apostle's (and the other saints') hope, Joyner continues his practice of self-adulation under the guise of words from earlier worthies. Since we have it on the authority of Joyner's "vision" that the apostle's writings aren't really true, we should probably be thankful that Paul has here commissioned Joyner to do "much writing" so the church will receive what it needs. I find it odd that Paul would say that he "can only confirm what I have already written," since Joyner has him implying that what he wrote was false. To "confirm" means to "prove the truth of" something, yet Joyner has Paul "confirming" the falsity of his writings. Maybe the apostle is confused.

He even has the Lord agree with Paul and imply that perhaps Joyner and his generation will be the ones to finally replace the apostle as those who will be "the most faithful with both" the ministry and the message. It's perhaps worth recalling that Joseph Smith and his followers (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, i.e., The Mormons) claimed, based on purported visions from an angel or angels, that they were recovering or reestablishing the true church and its ministry and message.

Joyner's statement(s) about the "great cloud of witnesses" cheering on him and his generation comes from Hebrews 12:1: "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us." Commentators seem to be divided on whether the scenario is as Joyner describes it or if these are "witnesses" for (i.e., testifying to) what faith in Jesus entails—and hence we are to follow and be encouraged by their example.

The fact that the verbal form (MARTUREW) of the word translated as "witness(es)" (MARTUS) occurs in the immediately-preceding chapter 11 five times (the noun MARTUS only occurs in 12:1 and 10:28)—at 11:2 ("for by it the elders received a witness/testimony"), 11:4(2x) ("through which he was testified as being righteous"; "God testifying/bearing witness to his gifts"), 11:5 ("for before he was translated/taken up it was testified that he was pleasing to God"), and 11:39 ("and these all having received the witness/testimony through their faith did not receive the promise")—may mean that it is because God bore witness (MARTUREW) to their faith that they are called MARTUS—witnesses—i.e., those who have obtained a testimony from God, and that they surround us in the sense that the testimony of their faith always "surrounds" us as we strive to show the same perseverance.

Possible further proof that the author may not be writing about these witnesses "cheering us on" may be in the very next verse, 12:2, which states: "turning away from all else and looking to Jesus, the author/pioneer and perfector/finisher of our faith." If we "down here" are to keep our eyes on Jesus, how much more those who are around the throne or in Paradise or wherever they might be? He (Jesus), not we, is the one that is going to complete this thing. For the "witnesses" to be cheering us on would mean that they are fixing their eyes on us, trusting in us and our perseverance to make them perfect (11:40). I can't be dogmatic about this, though.

p. 137

I can't offhand think of any scriptures that promise, as Joyner has the Lord saying, that "the last day church" and "the last day believers" will manifest this activity, i.e., that preceding the return of Christ the church will be at its greatest and strongest. For a view similar to Joyner's which offers a theological argument, see the "Open Letter To Ed Tarkowski" from Francis Frangipane available at http://www.frangipane.org/promisekeepers/openletter.html. (NOTE: This link no longer works.)

pp. 138-139

It seems to me that Joyner sets up a nearly impossible, if not unscriptural, standard for hearing from, following or obeying the Lord. If one must be in perfect accord or "perfect union" with the Lord before one acts—for Joyner has the Lord state that our reasoning will "always" lead us "to do that which is exactly contrary to" the Lord's will—then one can only act upon direct, perfect inspiration, or else one will by Joyner's definition be led to go against the will of God. What is stated here even seems to be contrary to what Joyner writes in his Introduction about there being different levels of prophetic revelation (see my comments on pp. 9-12). Also, if "the most anointed [including Paul] who have … walked the earth" enjoyed this "perfect union" only partially, then that calls into question the trustworthiness of the Scriptures—for if for a moment the writers were not enjoying this "perfect union," then they were not thinking like the Lord, but their writings were mixed with their own reasoning. Likewise, unless we are at the moment "in perfect union" with the Lord, our praying and reading and understanding of Scripture will also be tainted by our "reasoning"—and hence lead us "to do that which is exactly contrary to" the Lord's will. In the same epistle in which he states that we who have the Spirit "have the mind of Christ" (I Corinthians 2:16), Paul himself says that "we know in part and we prophesy in part" (I Corinthians 13:9). Yet he doesn't warn against speaking forth or being led by such "partial" knowledge and prophecies. Rather, he says that prophecies are to be weighed or evaluated or judged (I Corinthians 14:29; I Thessalonians 5:19-21)—and he doesn't say that those who do this must at that time be in a specially-anointed state of "perfect union" with the Lord. I can't think that any orthodox, historic Christianity would accept what Joyner seems to be implying here.

Also, Joyner's concept of "union" with Christ may be beyond what Scripture teaches. One of the most common phrases in the New Testament is "in Christ" (EN CRISTWi) and its equivalent expressions, and that is very likely what lies behind the phrase Joyner has the Lord saying, i.e., "in perfect union with Me." This "union," this being "in Christ," however, usually describes the believer's state as a Christian. That is, we are, by being believers, "in union with" the Lord; there is not an "imperfect union" versus a "perfect union." (See "The Meaning of In Christ in the Greek New Testament" by Clarence B. Hale, © 1991, Summer Institute of Linguistics, ISBN 0883121824, in which he identifies 174 occurrences of the phrase EN CRISTWi and its equivalents (not counting any of the "in Me" or similar statements in the Gospels) and offers 241 suggested context-sensitive and meaning-based translations.) Joyner may, however, be talking about one particular aspect or emphasis of being "in Christ," i.e., "abiding/remaining" in Christ, which is common to the Johannine literature. In that case, the criticisms I voiced earlier about this being a nearly impossible and unscriptural standard could still apply.

p. 140

Here is more of the "eyes of your heart" teaching which seems to promote a non-biblical mysticism.

p. 141

Joyner believes (as he states in the Introduction) that "dreams, visions and prophecy are primary signs of the last days," and that "we will need them for accomplishing our purposes" as we get "closer to the end of this age" (p. 8). Hence one could conclude that in his desire to accomplish what he perceives his purpose to be, Joyner would logically be compelled to ask for dreams and visions, as Wisdom here says he did. However, I do not see in the Scriptures that we are to seek or ask for "dreams and visions." Rather than being from the Lord (Wisdom), the "dreams and visions" Joyner claims to have received may instead be a product of his own desire or imagination—or they may originate from a spiritual source other than the Lord.

pp. 144-145

Here again is a "famous" person whom Joyner fails to identify.

p. 146

This may be a minor objection, but "Lucifer" ("That is how Lucifer fell") is how the Vulgate (i.e., Jerome's (ca. 347-419 A.D.) Latin translation of the Scriptures) translated HeYLeL BeN-ShaHaR ("morning star" or "crescent moon") in Isaiah 14:12, the only place in the Scriptures where this word occurs. Thus, Joyner has the Lord using the Vulgate (or later translations like the King James Version which also used "Lucifer") and/or explicitly identifying the person in Isaiah 14:12 with (presumably) Satan. That Isaiah is in this passage referring to Satan is by no means an established fact or agreed-upon interpretation, even though it is one that is popularly held and preached. See any scholarly commentary on Isaiah or, e.g., the article "Fallen Star: The Evolution of Lucifer" by Ronald F. Youngblood in the December 1998 issue of Bible Review magazine.

pp. 147-148

I've already mentioned the claims that in some cases of inner-healing prayer Jesus has appeared to persons in a friendly manner. I can't help but feel, though, that this encounter with Jesus where He smiles and puts His arm around Joyner and "grants him his wish" reads more like a meeting with the character of Barney the Purple Dinosaur from the children's TV show than with the Lord Jesus Christ.

pp. 149-150

I've already discussed why I think the requirement that Joyner presents of needing to be "in perfect union with" the Lord is possibly unscriptural. I allowed that he might mean "abiding/remaining" in Christ, though I said that there could be problems with that, too (see my comments on pp. 138-139). His statements here seem to support my thought that a continual abiding in the Lord's presence is what Joyner means by "perfect union."

At one point Joyner states that when the believer knows the Lord's heart, then the eyes of the believer's heart will be opened and he will then see as the Lord sees (p. 130). At another place he indicates that the believer can, while in this earthly realm, choose to look with the eyes of his heart (p. 140). Joyner's concept of seeing "with the eyes of [one's] heart" seems to indicate that the believer can control revelation from the Lord. However, Joyner's teaching about seeing with the eyes of one's heart seems to be inconsistent. In his Introduction where he explains the different levels of prophetic revelation, Joyner consigns seeing with the eyes of one's heart to the lowest level (visions at the level of prophetic "impression"), saying that such revelation can be affected by our own feelings, prejudices and doctrines (pp. 9-10). On p. 130, however, he has the Lord saying that when one sees with the eyes of one's heart, one sees as the Lord sees, which I would think would place it at the highest level of revelation. And then on this page he has the Lord saying that such seeing is not a level of perception but a means of spiritual growth ("Every time you see Me with the eyes of your heart, your mind is renewed a little bit more").

I've already discussed why Joyner's concept of how veils are removed seems to be unscriptural (see my comments on p. 106).

p. 158

With this we turned into a corridor and were no longer in the great hall of judgment. The glory of Wisdom was all around me, but I could no longer see Him distinctly. Suddenly I came to a door. I turned because I did not want to leave, but I immediately knew that I had to. This was the door that Wisdom had led me to. I had to go through it.

To be continued …

This is how the book actually ends! I said earlier that this reads at times more like a fantasy novel or a ZORK computer adventure game ("You are standing at the end of a long hall in what looks like an ancient castle. There are markings engraved in the wall in a strange but beautiful script. The ceiling stretches far above you until it disappears in darkness. You notice an open door on your right leading into what appears to be a room or another hallway. You are holding a gold shield and you wear a silver mantle ...") than a serious recounting of an actual vision from the Lord.

"To be continued …" Joyner writes. As great as the demand for this book and the response to it has been (it's Joyner's best-selling book ever, with (he says) sales of a quarter of a million copies), I am not surprised that he concludes with the hope or promise that more of this "vision" will be published. Indeed, since writing this review, Joyner has publised a sequel to THE FINAL QUEST, entitled THE CALL.

Related articles:

PROPHETIC MANDATE -- LEVELS OF INTEGRITY, TRUTHFULNESS, AND RESPONSIBILITY: A Public Rebuke of Rick Joyner

The focus of this article is not to highlight 'prophetic inaccuracy' alone, but rather to report the contents of the tape and MorningStar's official and public reaction to the difficulties MorningStar itself has generated. Since MorningStar preaches an abundance of grace regarding prophetic 'mistakes', there is no reason, even according to their own doctrine, to deny the contents of this prophecy by Jones/Joyner. MorningStar could have had a more honorable reaction to the dilemma of those who listened to them, but Joyner and the 'Round Table' chose a different course. For this, and because of other practices outlined in this document regarding their 'representation' of what the 'prophetic' is, they are openly rebuked.

Joyner's account of the contents of the tape is at best irresponsible. This public release was a misrepresentation of the facts. It is a rewriting of history. It is a misdirection from the contents of the tapes, as if they were not clear. Many prophecies that have circulated the Internet and have been on the Internet from MorningStar have been very vague, and therefore nearly impossible to say, "This did come true". This prophecy was different, as Joyner himself said on the tape.

You will be wasting both your time and mine if your criticisms of my review are just your opinions or feelings and are not substantiated from Scripture or from THE FINAL QUEST itself or from other authoritative or relevant sources. If you do send me such an inappropriate response, do not be surprised if you do not get a reply from me.

E-mail to: papaweiss1@yahoo.com

Back to Literary Creations