Paul a Mystic?

What does author F.F. Bruce mean when he uses the term “mysticism” in regards to Paul and his visions. How did the “mysteries” that Paul received relate to his ministry and the church? Was Paul’s theology based on mystical experiences? Why or why not? How would you respond to a person today who claimed to have mystical revelations from God with little or no reference to the Bible?

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes of his personal experiences of visions and revelations (1 Cor. 12:1 [NASB]). Paul continues by explaining a time where he was “caught up to the third heaven” (1 Cor. 12:2). Accordingly, an important question is whether one could categorize Paul as a mystic. In an attempt to define the meaning of mysticism, F. F. Bruce cites a definition provided by Evelyn Underhill, who states that mysticism was “the name of that organic process which involves the perfect consummation of the Love of God.”[1] Bruce agrees with Underhill, assuming that an understanding of God’s love is a result of a life “in Christ.”[2] Bruce also references R. C. Tannehill who defines mysticism as “the doctrine that the individual can come into immediate contact with God through subjective experiences of daily life.”[3] Bruce also supports Tannehill’s definition but provides a few caveats regarding a proper understanding of Paul’s mysticism in light of his ministry and theology, which are topics for further investigation below. However, regardless of his support for succinct definitions, Bruce clearly articulates that the experiential nature of Paul’s visions and belief system rests on a joint crucifixion and resurrection with Christ resulting in a life lived “in Christ.”[4]

Bruce recognizes that the primary focus of Pauline mysticism pertains to a believer’s new creation status based on a life lived in Christ Jesus (Col. 1:26-27).[5] However, to suggest that a life incorporated into Christ is an isolated endeavor misses the mark. Bruce suggests that a believer’s individual union with Christ is also a union with the church body – “a communal or corporate mysticism.”[6] In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul provides specific references to the mystery of Christ’s corporate nature with the inclusion of Gentiles as “fellow heirs and fellow members of the body” (Eph. 3:4-6). Accordingly, William Porcher Dubose insightfully and rhetorically asks, “What is Christianity but the living oneness of Christians with Christ, and with one another in Christ?”[7] Additionally, Bruce notes that Paul’s revelations affirmed his divine ministerial appointment to spread the Gospel from Antioch to Rome, which made the nature of Paul’s mysticism quite exceptional.[8] In other words, the spiritual experiences Paul encountered did not lead to a form of vainglorious quietism, but instead, “It constituted an insistent call to lifelong action.”[9] Finally, suggesting Pauline mysticism is completely communal goes too far in the other direction. Bonnie Bowman Thurston notes Paul’s mysticism was an integral part of his prayer life in that prayer for Paul was in the Spirit, a mystery, and evidence of direct access to God.[10] However, Thurston also importantly recognizes all Paul’s supernatural experiences, including prayer, supported his ministry “for the good of the whole church.”[11] 

According to Bruce, Paul did not base his theology on mystical experiences, but Paul’s mystical experiences aligned with his theology for two primary reasons. First, as noted above, Bruce agrees with Tannehill regarding the possibility of a believer coming into direct contact with God through experience.[12] However, to suggest that an individual understands God based completely on subjective personal experiences is going too far. Accordingly, Bruce states that “Paul’s theology was not based on experiences, which might be described as mystical: it is based on Jesus.”[13] Next, Bruce adamantly supports the fact that Paul personally appropriated God’s love and experienced a union with Christ.[14] In other words, the subjective experiential element is relevant, but it must rest on a proper theology. Therefore, Bruce concludes that Paul’s experience of “dying and rising with Christ was not only a matter of sacramental theology or church doctrine but of personal experience.”[15]

Ernest Troeltsch suggests that mysticism becomes dangerous when it changes from a “world of ideas which had hardened into formal worship and doctrine… [into] a purely personal and inward experience.”[16] Unfortunately, Troeltsch continues, this form of mysticism leads to the “formation of groups on a purely personal basis, with no permanent form, which also tends to weaken the significance of forms of worship, doctrine, and the historical element.”[17] Due to the risks associated with mysticism disconnected from doctrine, a form of Socratic inquiry may be necessary in response to the mystical explanations furnished by modern day Christians. By asking questions and staying curious, one decreases the risk of defensiveness arising from the individual questioned. Accordingly, an openness may occur to the possibility that the originating source is not God, especially if the revelations do not align with Scripture.