Was Paul a mystic? Bruce’s discussion on this topic in his book Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free is not very helpful on this subject, primarily because he uses three different definitions for mysticism in his discussion; consequently, his approach causes more confusion than clarity. If one attempts to employ every possible definition of mysticism to Paul’s experience, then it will be impossible to determine if Paul was a “mystic.” Therefore, I will begin discussing this issue by offering a single brief definition before addressing this question.
For the sake of this discussion, and against my better judgment, I will use Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary for a definition of mysticism. One of Webster definitions for “mysticism” is as follows: 2. “A doctrine of an intermediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding . . . .” My own definition would be “a propensity to rely upon personal experiences of subjective intuition that bypasses the senses and defies rational thought or reason.” However, for this discussion Webster’s definition will suffice.
For some people any subjective spiritual experience would qualify as a mystical experience since it does not involve the physical senses. Such a position, however, views the spiritual world as unnatural; consequently any expression of spirituality is viewed as mysterious or mystical. I would contend that such a worldview is biased simply because it rejects the spiritual world as a reality; thus, it should be rejected. Any worldview that considers the spiritual realm as “unnatural” or mysterious should be questioned. The bottom line is this, being a spiritually minded person is not synonymous with being “mystical.”
But by using Webster’s second definition the question is, was Paul a mystic and was his conversion a mystical experience? I would argue that Paul conversion and his approach to spirituality was not mystical. For starters one should analyze his conversion. Paul was converted when he experienced a miraculous event that was confirmed by several real and physical phenomena. First, Paul and his companies saw a bright light, which was also accompanied by a noise that was heard by all—which Paul understood as the voice of Jesus (speaking in a Hebrew dialect) but those with him either did not understand that is was a voice or did not understand the language that was being spoken (for further discussion see my blog on is there a contradiction in Paul’s personal testimonies in Acts). Second, Paul was immediately confronted with the loss of a physical sense—his eyesight. And lastly, Paul regained his sight when Ananias touched him and “scales” fell from his eyes. These scales were physical and not “mythical” since they were seen by others. That they may have symbolized Paul’s spiritual blindness before he received Christ one can only speculate. Nevertheless, they were real scales, they were not imagined by Paul. Moreover, how mystical could Paul’s Damascus Road experience have been if he didn’t fully understand what had happened to him? In other words, Paul didn’t fully comprehend the experience and identify of who he had met until Annias showed up and explained it to him (Acts 9.17-18). Consequently, Paul’s experience was not completely understood and appreciated solely by “spiritual intuition” or through a “personal experiences of subjective intuition.” Instead, Paul’s conversion involved the physical senses of sight and sound that were also experienced by multiple people, as well as being corroborated and illuminated through rational explanation from Annias concerning the identity of who Paul met on the Damascus Road. Clearly, Paul’s conversion was miraculous, but it was not mystical. What Paul experienced and heard was attested to by others and involved physical events and phenomena. Consequently, Paul’s Damascus Road experience and subsequent conversion is best described as a supernatural divine intervention and not a subjective mystical experience.
This is not to say that Paul never had mystical experiences—e.g., being caught up in the third heaven. Clearly, Paul had personal spiritual experiences that defy explanation or confirmation by others. The question is, however, were those experiences the basis for his theology and his approach to spirituality (e.g., what Paul meant when he spoke of being “in Christ”)? If one reviews all of Paul’s epistles what will be found is regular references to the Old Testament and appeals to logic and real world experiences (such as the Law was a tutor, and that Jews are freed from the Law just as a wife is upon the death of her husband). Paul’s theology was not based upon appeals to his mystical experiences. Does not Paul call our union with Christ a mystery? Indeed he did, but Paul’s theology of our union with Christ was not based upon his mystical experiences but upon the teachings of Jesus and the promises that Paul found in the Old Testament. Being “in Christ” in Paul’s theology spoke to our legal standing before God the Father as much as it spoke to our inseparable fellowship with Jesus. Paul and his theology was a “both/and” rather than an “either/or” experience or doctrine. Consequently, while there are mystical elements to Paul’s teachings about our relationship to the Lord (I doubt anyone would argue that the union of sinful mortals with the holiness of God is “normal” or logical), that is not to prove that Paul was a mystic. Instead, Paul was a leader with a vital and intimate relationship with the Lord, who based his theology of the reality of the Messiah as promised in the Old Testament, promises that could be rationally explained and reasonably believed, all of which were ultimately grounded upon the historical event of the Lord Jesus’ crucifixion, death, burial, and physical resurrection from the dead. Moreover, lest we forget, Paul claimed that he met the risen Lord Jesus Christ, not through some mystical subjective experience, but in his physical resurrected body (cf. 1 Cor 9.1, 15.8; Acts 23.11). Consequently, Paul did not appeal to his own subjective experiences as the foundation of his theology, but to the historic fact of the risen Savior. Consequently, Paul was not a mystic.
Doc.
Monte Shanks Copyright © 2014