A MISGUIDED SPIRITUALITY

Exploring the Roots of Medieval Mysticism

A false spirituality is invading the Church. I first became aware of the seriousness of this when Sue and I attended a week-long seminar on “Spiritual Renewal” a number of years ago. There was no discussion of what Jesus taught about prayer or about the New Testament teaching on a baptism in the Holy Spirit for witness and service. Instead, each person was given a sea shell and asked to look at the shell and meditate on the struggles the little animal must have gone through in escaping the shell. Included in the activities was two days at a retreat center where we were asked to take a vow of silence. We were also required to read a book that included writings of the mystics of the medieval church, including Julian of Norwich, John of the Cross, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and others. Indeed, the medieval mystics were held up as shining lights and models that we should follow in our spiritual journey.

I came away from that seminar, not renewed, but with a profound sense that this was a substitute for the real thing—a replacement for the spirituality of Jesus and the New Testament. Through further research I have come to realize that, although many of the mystics can be admired for their passion and devotion, they cannot be followed in their experiences and doctrines. Theirs was a misguided spirituality rooted in pagan thinking, and those who look to them as models for their own spirituality will also be misguided.

The Origins of Medieval Mysticism

Medieval mysticism arose in reaction to the lifeless, outward forms of the institutionalized medieval church. During the same period evangelical revival groups also emerged for similar reasons. But whereas revival groups, such as the Waldenses and Albigneses, gave their ultimate allegiance directly to Jesus and the Scriptures, the mystics tended to give their allegiance to the pope and the institutional church. This meant that they were more susceptible to non-Biblical approaches to spirituality and this resulted in their adoption of many beliefs and practices that were rooted in pagan mystical religions, particularly Neoplatonism.

Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism arose in Egypt during the 3rd century through the Greek philosopher, Plotinus, who emphasized and expanded the teachings of Plato and turned Plato’s philosophical system into a mystical religion. Plato had taught that there is a supreme being from which all other beings derive their existence, and he also believed in the immortality of the human soul. Expanding on Plato’s teaching, Plotinus taught that this Supreme Being, whom he called “The One,” was absolutely “other than” this physical world and, therefore, could not be grasped or understood by human knowledge, reason, or speech.

From “The One” had emanated a series of descending entities resulting in a hierarchy of divine beings between “The One” and humanity. Plotinus believed that it was one of these lesser emanations that had created the physical world. The ultimate goal of the Neoplatonist was, through contemplation of “The One,” to ascend through this hierarchy of beings and be united with “The One.” Since “The One” existed beyond all human knowledge and rationale, “The One” could only be encountered in an irrational state of ecstasy (trance) achieved through mystical contemplation.

The noted historian, Dr. Justo Gonzalez, says,

"Neoplatonists believed that if they performed a certain series of progressive steps of contemplation, they would be able to leave behind all the cares and all concerns for physical realities. They thought they could contemplate eternal realities and eventually achieve 'ecstasy.'" Neoplatonists believed that at this point they would be in unity with “The One.”

Neoplatonism became very popular throughout the Greco-Roman world and, as might be expected, many Christians attempted to follow the Neoplatonic route of contemplation. In the 6th century, one of these Neoplatonic Christians wrote a treatise on mystical contemplation and at the top penned the words, “Dyonisius the Elder to His Fellow-Elder Timothy.” By this stroke of the pen this unknown individual, now believed to have been a Syrian monk, claimed his writings to be the work of one of Paul’s earliest disciples, Dyonisius of Athens (Acts 17:34), written to another early disciple, Timothy.

The forgery worked and the works of this individual, now known as “False Dyonisius,” were accepted as the works of one of Paul’s earliest disciples and, thereby, gained much acceptance and authority in the medieval church. So popular became his works that bishops regularly quoted from them and several of the foremost medieval theologians wrote commentaries on them. Thomas Aquinas cited him over 1700 times. It was not until the 16th century that the authenticity of these writings began to be questioned by the Reformers. Today, both Protestants and Catholics recognize these as later documents written by a “False Dyonisius.”

Nonetheless, during the Middle Ages Dyonisius became the primary source and guide for spirituality in the church. As a result, spiritual experiences and revelations through contemplation were exalted and valued while the Scriptures were often ignored and, at times, even banned by the institutional church. Exotic, non-Biblical miracles such as levitations, communion wafers bleeding, statues weeping, apparitions of the saints and the Virgin Mary, etc. were hailed as the great works of God.

Commenting on medieval mysticism and its neglect of Scripture, Hans Kung, the most widely read Catholic theologian in the world today, says,

"These new revelations not only overshadowed the Bible and the Gospel, but also Him whom the Gospel proclaims and to whom the Bible bears witness. It is striking how rarely Christ appeared in all these 'revelations,' 'apparitions,' and 'wonders.' Catholics who followed in the wake of every new 'revelation,' which often turned out to be fantasy or deceit, and indulged their desire for sensation by looking for the latest reports of miracles—and yet who had never once in their whole lives read the Scriptures from cover to cover."

During the Middle Ages Paul was read through the eyes of Dyonisius and turned into a mystic by the medieval church. Paul’s experience of being caught up to the third heaven, which he reluctantly shared in II Corinthians 12:1-6, was interpreted by the mystics as an experience initiated by Paul through mystic contemplation. In fact, as Gonzalez says, “Paul’s entire life was viewed as a process of mystical ascension, and his letters were considered to be guides in that process.”

Within this Neoplatonic, mystical mindset emerged the mystical movement of the medieval church of which the following traits were characteristic.

• A mystical union of the soul with God
• Special forms and techniques of prayer and meditation
• An ascetic withdrawal from the world
• An unhealthy preoccupation with suffering
• The rejection of rational thinking

Characteristic 1:
A Mystical Union of the Soul with God

Like the Neoplatonist, the goal of the Christian medieval mystic was a mystical union of the human soul with God in which the individual would “swim in the wild waves of the ocean of God’s being.” This mystical union could only be achieved in a state of quietness and contemplation, “the quiet dark in which all who love God lose themselves,” as one mystic put it.

Characteristic 2:
Special Forms of and Techniques of Prayer and Meditation

As aids in achieving the contemplative state and mystical union with God, various postures and techniques for prayer and meditation were employed. Some were quite remarkable. Gregory Palamas, a 13th Century monk, stressed quietness and stillness in the pursuit of this union with God. As an aid to concentration, he recommended that the chin rest on the chest, with the eyes fixed on the navel.

Characteristic 3:
A Withdrawal From the World

In its merger with Monasticism, mysticism took on an ascetic character in which withdrawal from the world was emphasized. The monastery and the convent thus became the ideal places where mysticism could be studied and applied. In the monastery, Luther diligently sought to find peace with God through ascetic and mystical practices but was frustrated in these attempts. After finding peace with God through the revelation of the gospel in the Scriptures, he wrote, “If ever a monk got to heaven by monkery, I would have gotten there.”

Characteristic 4:
An Unhealthy Preoccupation with Suffering

An unhealthy preoccupation with suffering characterized medieval mysticism. Some mystics, such as Julian of Norwich (1342-ca.1416), considered one of the greatest English mystics, prayed to be deathly sick, thinking that through such suffering she could better identify with Christ in His sufferings.

Not having an opportunity to suffer for Christ, as did the early Christian martyrs, many mystics pursued a self-inflicted martyrdom. For example, Henry Suso (d. 1366), a German Dominican mystic who gained fame for his sanctity and devotion, wore an undergarment studded with 150 sharp tacks that, he said, felt as if he were lying in a nest of wasps. He also made a wooden cross to which he affixed 30 spikes and on this he lay every night for eight years. To intensify his suffering, he affixed seven sharp needles to the cross, and for a long time, he daily inflicted himself with two penitential drills. In these exercises, he would tie the cross to his back and beat upon it with his fist until the spikes and needles penetrated the flesh and the blood flowed down to his feet.

This unhealthy preoccupation with suffering, and the belief that it produced a cleansing effect on the soul, gave rise to writings such as The Dark Night of the Soul by John of the Cross (1542–91), a Spanish mystic and close friend of Theresa of Ávila (1515-1584).

Characteristic 5:
The Rejection of Rational Thinking

Medieval mysticism also rejected reason and rational thinking, accessing these as hindrances to the soul achieving mystical unity with God. A work by “False Dyonisius” that gained much fame in the medieval church was a book called Mystic Theology in which he wrote,

"I counsel thee in the earnest exercise of mystic contemplation, that you leave the senses and activities of the intellect and all that the senses or intellect can perceive. Having laid your understanding to rest, strain as far as you can toward a union with Him whom neither being nor understanding can contain. So shall you be led upwards to the Ray of that divine Darkness which surpasses all existence."

The parallels with Neoplatonism, particularly in the rejection of reason and union with the Divine, are obvious. Gonzalez describes this work as, “An explanation of basically Neoplatonic mysticism in which the religious life consists in an ascending vision of God."

Mysticism Does Not Align with the Teachings
of Jesus or the New Testament.

Of course, neither Jesus nor Paul advocated the rejection of the intellect or rational thinking. In fact, Jesus said that we are to love God with all our . . . minds (Matthew 22:37). Paul’s mode of operation in fulfilling his call to the Gentiles involved the use of logical thinking as he reasoned daily in the synagogues and in the school of Tyrannus concerning the identity of Jesus (Acts 17:2-3; 19:9-10).

It is the carnal mind that is against God, not the mind per se. The answer is not to reject the mind and rational thinking, but to renew the mind in God’s Word as Paul admonishes in Romans 12:2. God’s Word and Spirit will often transcend human reason, but they will never violate it or seek to eliminate it.

Medieval mysticism is out of touch with Jesus and the New Testament in terms of prayer, as well. Jesus, for example, does not advocate any form of mystical prayer. He does not teach any postures or techniques for prayer and meditation. Neither is there any mention of silence or contemplation. Instead, He emphasizes a relational approach to God in which prayer is simple conversation with a loving, benevolent Being whom He calls Abba, an endearing term used only by children for the father in the Jewish household.

For Jesus, oneness with God is not a mystical union of one’s being with God, but a practical oneness of will and purpose. Not My will but Thine be done, Jesus prayed, showing that, in His incarnate state, union with God consisted of a submission of His will to the will of the Father.

Another point of divergence with Jesus and New Testament Christianity is that Jesus does not call His disciples to withdraw from the world into solitude and contemplation. Instead, He promises a baptism in the Holy Spirit that will empower His followers to prophetically engage the world as His witnesses.

Neither does Jesus teach progressive stages of cleansing through darkness and suffering, as did the mystics. Instead, He emphasizes the Word of God as an agent of cleansing or sanctification. For example, He says to His disciples, You are already clean through the word I have spoken to you (John 15:3). And He prays to the Father, Sanctify them by Your truth, Your word is truth (John 17:17). The New Testament writers echo this thinking as in Acts 20:32 where Paul says to the elders at Ephesus, So, now brethren I commend you to God and to the word of His grace which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Parallels with Eastern Mysticism

Some have also pointed out the similarities of medieval mysticism with religions of the East that also seek a mystical union of the human soul with the Divine through meditation and contemplation. This should not surprise us for there was much travel and trade between India and Egypt at the time Neoplatonism (and Monasticism) had their beginnings in Egypt. This is why Kung says,

"And yet we must realize that mysticism is not a specifically Christian phenomenon. Not only is mysticism older than Christianity; it also comes from far away. Mystical religion had already come into being at a very early stage – in the late Vedan period – in India."

Although many of the mystics can be admired for their passion and devotion, their approaches to spirituality must be read with discerning caution and carefully compared with Scripture. The Reformers and Revivalists of the 16th century did not consider the medieval mystics to be their predecessors but, rather, sought to model their faith and spirituality after Jesus and the New Testament. We would be wise to follow their example.

OLD TESTAMENT NAMES OF THE MESSIAH REVEAL WHO JESUS REALLY IS

It is Christmas again and the world is again being confronted with Jesus. Yes, I understand that the real Jesus is too often obscured by all the tinsel and commercialism of the season, and I am aware of the overt attempts to completely remove Him from Christmas. Nonetheless, instead of cursing the darkness let’s light a candle and ask God for creative ways to make known to this generation who Jesus really is.

One of the most clear and compelling statements of His identity was spoken 600 years before His birth by the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah did this by applying four compound names to the coming Messiah. The names are “Wonderful Counselor,” “Mighty God,” “Everlasting Father,” and “Prince of Peace.”

The Significance of Names

In the ancient near East, the name of a person was bound up with that person’s very existence. Parents chose names for their children that embodied their hopes for those children. A change of circumstances or a change of character often called for a new name to express the change that had taken place. In Gen. 17:4-5, for example, God changes the name of Abram (exalted father) to Abraham (father of a multitude) to reflect the change that has occurred in his faith and circumstances. In Gen. 32:28 God changes the name of Jacob (supplanter) to Israel (Prince of God) to reflect the change that has taken place in his life and character.

Isaiah 9:6 is a Messianic prophecy and Isaiah’s use of these four compound names make a powerful statement concerning the identity the Messiah. Inherent in these Old Testament names of the Messiah is the revelation of His deity. Understanding the significance of names, those first readers of Isaiah’s prophecy must have shaken their heads in wonder at the name of their coming Messiah.

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end (Isaiah 9:6-7a).

Wonderful Counselor

Although “Wonderful” and “Counselor” are often spoken separately, most Biblical scholars agree that the two words actually belong together to form one of the compound names of the Messiah. The word “Wonderful” is translated from the Hebrew word pelẽ and refers to that which is marvelous and breathtaking and causes astonishment in those who encounter it. The word “Counselor” is from the Hebrew word yaas, which means to advise or counsel in regards to plan and purpose. What an incredible name! And what an incredible blessing to have this One whose name is “Wonderful Counselor” as our personal counselor and guide.

Mighty God

“Mighty” is from the Hebrew word gibbor and refers to greatness, power and strength. It was often used as an adjective to describe successful, victorious warriors. It was also used as an adjective for Deity. “God” is a translation of the Hebrew word “El” which was a common generic word for God and literally means “great one” or “mighty one.” It was often joined with other words to form a compound name for God, such as El-Shaddai, commonly translated as “The Almighty,” and El-Elyon, commonly translated as “The Most High.” Wonder of wonders! This “Child” that is to be born is actually gibbor El, the “Mighty God.”

Everlasting Father

“Everlasting” is from the Hebrew word ad, which refers to time without end or eternity. In Isaiah 45:17 it is translated as “forever and ever.” “Father” is translated from the Hebrew word ab, which, in the Old Testament, referred to a father or protector. From ab came abba, the word Jesus commonly used in addressing God. Abba was a term of endearment, such as Papa or Daddy, and was only used by children in the Jewish household. What a clear picture of the Incarnation. This “Child” that is to be born will be none other than the eternal God, the “Everlasting Father.”

Prince of Peace

“Prince” is a translation of the Hebrew word sar, which refers to a person of authority such as a chief, captain, governor, or ruler. “Peace” is a translation of the Hebrew word shalom, which is usually translated as peace, but has connotations far beyond an inner sense of tranquility. It means completeness, fulfillment, wholeness, and indicates the complete mental, emotional, physical, spiritual and financial well being of a person. Jesus did not come to just take us to heaven some day. He came to bring us shalom, wholeness, blessing, and fulfillment. He has become the captain or master of our shalom. Hallelujah!

Conclusion

This messianic prophecy begins with the phrase, For unto us . . .. Isaiah is saying, “The Messiah is coming for us. God will do all this for us.” Isaiah’s prophecy has been fulfilled. God has come to us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Thomas recognized this when he saw Him in His resurrected form and exclaimed, My Lord and My God (John 20:28). Jesus told Peter that He would build His church on the revelation of who He is (Matt. 16:15-18). Are you on that foundation? Do you know who Jesus really is? Wonder of wonders! The Babe of Christmas is the Almighty God and Everlasting Father.

WOMEN, AUTHORITY & PAUL

5 Reasons Those Who Would Limit the Participation of Women
in the Church Can No Longer Claim Paul as Their Authority

1 Timothy 2:11-12 is considered by many to be the Bible’s clearest statement against women functioning in authoritative roles of leadership in the Church. It reads, Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (NKJV). For many, this passage has become a canon within the canon and is used as the standard by which every other passage about women is measured. Passages that clearly recognize women functioning in authoritative roles of leadership are not given equal consideration but are subordinated to this passage and forced to fit within the narrow parameters of the interpreter’s take on this verse.

Typical of this approach is that of the popular Spirit Filled Life Bible (which otherwise has much that is commendable). In commenting on Rom. 16:7 where Paul recognizes a female apostle named Junia, the commentator argues that this could be a man named “Junias.” This very weak argument is made in spite of the overwhelming manuscript and historical evidence that this was a female apostle named Junia.

Why would this commentator argue for the possibility of this apostle being a man named “Junias” when every ancient Greek manuscript has the feminine form of Junia? The answer is found, perhaps, in the commentary section on 1 Tim. 2:11-12 where the commentator’s bias against a woman functioning as an apostle is obvious. He says, “The prohibition of vs. 12 refers to the authoritative office of apostolic teacher in the church.” No explanation is given for this conclusion, which is not surprising since there is nothing in the text to suggest that this is what Paul had in mind.

What does become clear is that, in the mind of this commentator, Junia, of Rom. 16:7 is probably not a woman because it would violate the standard of judgment he has chosen on this matter, which is his own interpretation of I Tim. 2:11-12. He thus subordinates the clear statement of Paul in Rom. 16:7 to his own unclear interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12. His interpretation of I Tim. 2:11-12, which does not allow women to function as apostles, thus serves as his canon within the canon and he subordinates all other passages on women to this. This is poor hermeneutics, but happens when we impose our own traditional prejudices and presuppositions on the text rather than allowing the text to speak to us and challenge our traditions.

On the surface and out of context, 1 Tim. 2:11-12 can appear to be a very clear statement against women functioning in leadership in the Church. But a different picture emerges when, instead of reading into the text our own prejudices, traditions and assumptions, we take into account five obvious facts about the letter and the passage in question. Taken together, these five exegetical considerations clearly demonstrate that Paul is not restricting women from any function of leadership in the Church. The five exegetical facts presented in this article are:

(1) 1 Timothy is a personal letter, written to an individual, not to a church, indicating that Paul is addressing personal issues related to Timothy and his unique situation rather than universal issues applicable to all churches everywhere.

(2) Chapter 1 and verse 3 indicates that Paul is addressing a particular problem that is plaguing the church in Ephesus and what he writes must be considered in the light of this real-life, local situation.

(3) The word translated “authority” in vs. 12 is not the normal word for authority and is found only here in the New Testament, indicating that Paul is not addressing the normal exercise of authority in all churches, but is addressing the unique problem plaguing the church in Ephesus at the time.

(4) When Paul comes to the passages in question he suddenly switches from addressing “women” (plural) in vss. 9-10 to addressing “a woman” (singular) in vss. 11-15, leading some commentators to conclude that he is addressing a particular problematic woman in Ephesus.

(5) Paul, in his other letters, recognizes women who functioned in various authoritative roles of leadership and these must be given equal weight when considering if the New Testament imposes limitations on the role of women in the Church.

Reason #1
I Timothy Is a Personal Letter

Paul wrote three personal letters as he was nearing the end of his life, two to Timothy who was in Ephesus, and one to Titus who was on the island of Crete. These letters contain instructions and requests, some of which are obviously related to the recipient of the letter and cannot be applied to all Christians. For example, in 2 Timothy 4:9-15, Paul exhorts Timothy to come quickly to him and bring a coat he left in Troas along with the books he left there.

In 1 Timothy 5:9-14 Paul exhorts Timothy that widows under sixty years of age should not receive support from the church and that younger women should marry. It is interesting to note that those who are so intent on literally applying 1 Timothy 2:11-12 do not have the same concern for 1 Timothy 5:9-14.

1Timothy was written to encourage and instruct Timothy in his very specific task of confronting false teaching in the church at Ephesus that was being spread by both men and women. Good hermeneutics demands that the historical context of this letter and its personal nature be taken into consideration when interpreting the passage at hand.

Reason #2
Paul is Addressing A Unique Local Situation in Ephesus

Verse 3 of chapter 1 reveals that 1 Timothy was written as a follow-up to encourage and instruct Timothy in his very specific assignment of confronting heretical teaching in the church in Ephesus. Paul had given this assignment to Timothy when they were together in that city and he found it necessary to move on. Paul now writes from Macedonia to encourage and instruct Timothy in the carrying out of this particular and difficult assignment.

Paul was not writing a manual of church order that he wanted implemented in all churches. He is addressing the unique issues related to Timothy and the church in Ephesus at the time. Timothy’s situation and the specific nature of Paul’s instructions must be brought to the task of interpretation.

Reason #3
A Strange Greek Word

That Paul is addressing a unique situation in Ephesus is further borne out by the fact that the word “authority” in 2:12 is a translation of the Greek word authentein, which is found only here in the entire New Testament. If Paul is here giving a universal edict for church order, why doesn’t he use the normal word for authority, exousia, which he and all other New Testament writers use?

Paul’s use of authentein, which meant “to dominate” or “gain the upper hand,” may indicate a feminist movement of sorts in the church in Ephesus, probably with roots in Artemis the mother goddess who claimed priority and originality in creation (remember the chant “great is Artemis of the Ephesians” in Acts 19:28!). Paul’s use of a word that is not found any place else in the New Testament confirms that he is addressing a unique situation in Ephesus for which authentein is the appropriate word. If he had been giving a universal rule for church order in this passage, he would have used exousia, the normal New Testament word for authority.

Reason #4
The Structure of Chapter 2 Indicates That Paul
May Have Been Referring to A Particular Woman in 2:11-12

In 2: 9-10, Paul refers to “women” in the plural; but when he comes to the restrictive admonition of vss. 11-12, he changes to the singular and refers to “a woman.” Afterwards, in vs. 15, he returns again to the plural. This may indicate that, in writing this passage, Paul had a particular woman in mind, one primarily responsible for spreading the false teaching in Ephesus.
In vs. 12, the ongoing present tense of the verb (permit) also indicates that Paul’s restriction is temporary and that he may have a particular woman in mind. It literally reads, I am not permitting a woman to teach . . ..

In 1:18-20, Paul reveals that he has turned two of the false teachers who are men, Hymenaeus and Alexander, over to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. In regards to this unnamed woman he wants her to be allowed to learn in silence (quietness, without turmoil) but not allowed to teach or to authentiein, i.e., dominate or gain the upper hand. This is a temporary solution to a very real problem in Ephesus.

Reason #5
Women Pastors/Leaders in the NT

There are numerous women leaders in the New Testament, some who obviously functioned in pastoral roles of oversight. Paul mentions 2 of these female pastors in Rom. 16 as well as a female apostle.

Phoebe, A Woman Minister & Pastor
In Romans 16:1 Paul commends to the church at Rome our sister Phoebe who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, and he exhorts the Roman believers to receive her with respect and to assist her in whatever business she has come to carry out in Rome. Paul refers to Phoebe as a “servant,” which is the Greek word diakonos. Diakonos, or its verb form, is translated “minister” in 23 other places in the New Testament. For example, in Eph. 3:7, Paul says that he became a minister (diakonos) according to the gift of the grace of God.

Phoebe, therefore, was a minister, probably a pastor, from the church in Cenchrea. This is borne out by vs. 2 where Paul refers to her as a helper of many and of myself also. The Greek word translated “helper” in this verse is prostatis and, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, means “one who presides” or “a woman who is set over others.” When this passage is examined apart from our traditions and prejudicial assumptions, the evidence is overwhelming that Phoebe functioned in a leadership role similar to what we would call pastoral ministry.

Priscilla, A Woman Pastor
In verses 3-5 of the same chapter, Paul refers to Priscilla and Aquila and the church that is in their house. Priscilla and Aquila are always mentioned together in Scripture, which indicates that they worked and ministered together as a husband and wife team. This is confirmed by Acts 18:26 where both Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and both explained to him the way of God more accurately.

In presenting this couple, Paul always uses plural pronouns (they or them), but goes even further and reverses the culturally accepted manner of mentioning the husband first and, instead, mentions Priscilla first. He obviously wanted to make a point about her role and function in the relationship. Many commentators conclude that Priscilla is mentioned first because she was the spiritually gifted one and the leader of the church that met in their home. Again, the evidence is overwhelming that Priscilla functioned in a leadership role and was probably the pastor of the church that met in their house.

Junia, A Woman Apostle
In verse 7 of the same chapter, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a feminine name and so we have here a woman who is recognized by Paul as an apostle. The early church father, John Chrysostom, commenting on this verse, said, "Oh how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle."

Although some have tried to argue that the name should be “Junias,” which is male, every ancient Greek manuscript, without exception, has the feminine form of Junia. In addition, the name “Junias” is unknown in ancient history whereas the name Junia was quite common. In other words, “Junias” is a hypothetical name that has been created by translators who cannot accept the fact that Paul recognized a female apostle in the early Church.

When considering why some translations, such as the NIV, have used “Junias” in this passage, Dr. Dr. N. Clayton Croy, professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio, says, “It is hard to see any other reason other than the translators’ bias against the possibility that a woman could be an apostle.” Well-known New Testament scholar, James G. D. Dunn, says, “The assumption that the name must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity.”

Conclusion

In addition to the women above, there are numerous women mentioned by Paul who functioned in leadership roles and are referred to by him as “co-laborers.” These would include at least 3 women in Romans 16 and the 2 women of Phil. 4:3 whom Paul says “labored with” him in the gospel. The expression “labored with” is a translation of a rare Greek word sunethlesan, which describes athletes working as a team side-by-side and indicates that these women had worked closely with Paul in the ministry.

When all the evidence is examined it is obvious that Paul, in I Tim. 2:11-12, is not excluding women from teaching and leadership roles in the Church, nor is he limiting their roles and function in the Church. Those who would marginalize or limit the participation of women in the Church can no longer claim Paul as their authority.

A LITTLE LESS OF ME

Let me be a little kinder
Let me be a little blinder
To the faults of those around me
Let me praise a little more
Let me be when I am weary
Just a little bit more cherry
Think a little more of others
And a little less of me
(Recorded by Glen Campbell in 1965)

During the first year of our marriage Sue and I had a disagreement and neither of us was willing to yield any ground. Being young and naïve and having a traditional view of marriage, I went to prayer asking God to help her understand that she must submit to my God-ordained leadership. As I prayed in this manner, Paul’s exhortation for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church suddenly stood before me with the words and gave Himself for her highlighted in bold letters (Eph. 5:25). I then heard the Holy Spirit say, “The problem is that you are not willing to let go of yourself.”

Finding Life by Losing Our Life

When I heard this message from the Lord I knew that my “I” or ego was standing in the way of resolution and peace. There had to be a little less (probably a whole lot less) of me in that situation and in the relationship in general. As I obeyed the Lord and “let go of myself” in that situation, it proved to be a life-changing experience. I began to learn the truth of what Jesus said in Mk. 8:35, Whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it (Mk. 8:35).

I was learning that “a little less of me” was to be, not a one-time thing, but a way of life. This did not mean that I was to be a doormat for other people, but that I could no longer live my life—my Christian life--from self-serving motives. I was learning what true Christianity is all about.

The Character of True Christianity

True Christianity is not about you or me, but about Christ, as Paul so succinctly delineates in Galatians 2:20 where he says, I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (NKJV).

Interestingly, the Greek word for “I” is ego. What Paul is saying here is that his “I” or ego has been crucified with Christ and the “I” or ego is no longer the center of his life. Christ is now at the center of his life. Christ has replaced the “I” or ego as his reason and purpose for living, and it is no longer about Paul; it is now all about Jesus. Even the phrase, I live by faith in the Son of God, expresses this reality for Paul. It is in the genitive case and literally reads, I live by the faith of the Son of God. For Paul, even faith is no longer centered in himself but in Christ, and he lives by the faith of the Son of God.

It seems obvious that the North American church has not learned to live and walk in Galatians 2:20. It is still about us—our faith, our testimony, our ministry, our miracle, our revival, our church, etc., etc. I am convinced that it is this “I” or ego centered approach to Christianity that is holding back genuine Spiritual awakening in our nation. The Spirit of God is grieved when it is about us, and only superficially about Him. This was made very real to me by an experience I had a number of years ago.

We Grieve the Holy Spirit When It’s About Us

I had just preached in the Sunday evening service of a NE Texas church and was on my way home to the DFW area. As I drove along the dark two-lane highway, I noticed that I felt troubled in my spirit. My mind questioned, “Why?” “I should be happy and joyful,” I thought. “It was a good meeting.” Indeed, people seemed to be stirred by the message and a number responded to the invitation and some were weeping. “So why is my spirit so unsettled,” I asked as I drove along in the night.

Suddenly I heard the Holy Spirit speak on the inside of me, “You talked too much about yourself tonight.” I knew immediately what He meant. My message that night had been made up of personal stories of God’s blessing in my life and of miracle answers to prayer I had seen. I had not preached the word. Although it had sounded spiritual and had stirred some people’s emotions, it was too much about me. I had grieved the Holy Spirit by talking too much about myself and not enough about Jesus and His word.

Less of Me • More of Jesus

This experience sensitized me to the importance of keeping the focus on Jesus and His word. It made me realize that we can talk about miracles and answers to prayer and yet grieve the Holy Spirit if the message or testimony is really centered in “me” and not in Him. I realized in a new and fresh way that there must be “less of me” and more of Jesus in every area of my life, as John the Baptist so aptly stated in John 3:30.

Sometime after baptizing Jesus in the Jordan, someone came to John and informed him that the crowds were now giving their attention to Jesus rather than to him. John replied, He must increase, but I must decrease. We too must decrease so that He can increase in all areas of our lives. It is not easy, but it is only as we let go of our “self” for His sake that we will find our true self in Him.

In the 13th century, Francis of Assisi must have been struggling with “a little less of me” when he wrote:
O Divine Master,
Grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
(Prayer of Francis of Assisi)

THE CHURCH'S ONE FOUNDATION

A Fresh Look at Ephesians 2:20
in Light of Biblical Research & Revelation

While I affirm the continuation of apostles and prophets in the Church today, I am convinced that Eph. 2:20 does not teach that apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church or the churches. This conviction is based on an examination of the words “apostles” and “prophets” in this passage, the grammatical structure of the passage, and other New Testament passages which clearly point to Jesus Christ as the one and only foundation of the Church. Instead of referring to individual apostles and prophets, this passage is referring to the revelation of Jesus Christ that is found in the Old and New Testaments.

The passage in question, Eph. 2:20, reads, Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. With the current interest in contemporary apostles and prophets, this passage has become the proof text for the idea that apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church and churches. However, it is never wise to build a doctrine, especially one of this importance, on one Scripture. What about 1 Cor. 3:10 where Paul says, For no foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ. This is a serious issue for if we replace the true foundation with a faulty one, then everything we build upon it will eventually fall. In the following essay I hope to convince you that there is only one solid and sure foundation for the Church, Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Foundation of the Prophets

The Prophets was a common way for both Jews and Christians to refer to the Old Testament Scriptures during the 1st century. We must remember that “Old Testament” was an unknown expression for the New Testament writers, all of whom, except for Luke, were Jewish. Sometimes the Old Testament Scriptures are referred to as the Law and the Prophets or Moses and the Prophets or in the more abbreviated form of simply the Prophets. There are many examples of this abbreviated usage in the New Testament.

In Luke 24:25, for example, Jesus chides two of His disciples for being slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken, an obvious reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. In Acts 13:27, Paul says that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem crucified Christ because they did not know the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, another obvious reference to the Old Testament. In his defense before King Agrippa, Paul passionately implores, King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets?, another obvious reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. Because of its abbreviated form, the prophets became, perhaps, the most common way of referring to the Old Testament.

When Paul, therefore, uses the word prophets in Eph. 2:20 he is most likely referring to the Old Testament. The purpose of the Old Testament was to reveal the Messiah to God’s covenant people. This is borne out in Rom. 10:4 where Paul says, For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. The word “end” in this verse is a translation of the Greek word teleos and it means goal, purpose or destination. Christ is not the cessation of the law, but the destination or goal of the law.

This is confirmed by Jesus Himself when, in Luke 24:27, 44, He refers to all the things written in the Old Testament Scriptures concerning Himself. In other words, the Old Testament is not about laws, rules and regulations; it is about a person—Jesus the Messiah. When Paul, therefore, speaks of the foundation of the prophets, he is referring to the Old Testament Scriptures and their witness of Jesus Christ.

The Foundation of the Apostles

Acts 2:42 says that the earliest believers continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine, a reference to the oral teaching of the Twelve. This oral teaching included the message they had heard from Jesus and their eyewitness accounts of Jesus. This oral teaching of the Twelve and the later revelation of Paul were eventually written down and canonized in our New Testament.

This whole canonization process became necessary for a variety of reasons, not least that a church leader in the 2nd century named Marcion created his own canon of Scripture. Marion’s canon, however, included only Luke’s gospel and ten of Paul’s thirteen epistles. The ones he excluded were condemned as too Jewish.

Since all four gospels, Acts and all thirteen of Paul’s epistles had been universally recognized by Christians from the beginning, this was obviously something new and novel. Because many were being led astray by Marcion’s new canon, many church leaders felt it necessary to clarify what the churches had always believed by issuing their own list of New Testament books.

The inclusion of some books, however, was questioned, even among the orthodox. These questionable books included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Revelation. The number one criterion for determining if a questionable book (or any book) should be included in the canon was a positive answer to the question, “Is it apostolic?” That is, was it written by one of the original Twelve, by Paul or by one of their immediate associates? Only after an affirmative answer to this question, could a book be considered apostolic and worthy of being included in the canon.

Canon, of course, refers to a measure or rule. As such, the twenty-seven books of the New Testament are the rule against which all succeeding teachings and revelations must be measured. Why? Because the New Testament canon contains the original apostolic witness and teaching. Hans Kung, the well-known Roman Catholic theologian and reformer, says,

"The preaching of the apostles, as it has come down to us in the writings of the New Testament, is the original, fundamental testimony of Jesus Christ, valid for all time; being unique, it cannot be replaced or made void by any later testimony. Later generations of the Church are dependent on the words, witness and ministry of the first “apostolic” generation. The apostles are and remain the original witnesses, their testimony is the original testimony and their mission the original mission " (Kung, The Church, 456).

When Acts 2:42 says that the early Church continued steadfastly in the apostles teaching, it is referring to the oral teaching of the Twelve which is now canonized in our New Testament. Apostolic doctrine, therefore, is not the latest revelation touted by someone who calls himself or herself an apostle. Apostolic doctrine is the message and eyewitness accounts of those first followers of Jesus that are preserved for us in the New Testament. When, therefore, Paul says in Ephesians 2:20, that believers are being built on the foundation of the apostles . . ., he is referring to the original apostolic testimony and teaching that is now preserved in our New Testament.

The phrase having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets is now clearly seen to be the Old and New Testament Scriptures and their revelation of Jesus Christ. The authors of The Formula of Concord also recognized this prophetic role of the Old Testament and apostolic role of the New Testament. Produced by Lutherans in 1577, this historic document contains the statement,

"We believe, teach and confess that the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged."

Jesus Christ the Only Foundation

That Eph. 2:20 is referring to the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Old and New Testaments is also borne out by the fact that the phrase apostles and prophets is in the genitive case, the case that shows possession. It is like saying “the coat of John Doe.” Although the coat and John Doe are related, it does not follow that the coat is John Doe or that John Doe is the coat. In the same way, it does not follow that the foundation is identical with the apostles and prophets or that the apostles and prophets are identical with the foundation. This passage, as already demonstrated, is referring to the foundation of Jesus Christ that has been laid by the prophetic and apostolic witnesses of the Old and New Testaments.

This fact is further borne out in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian Church. In 1 Cor. 3:10-11, Paul refers to his founding of the church in Corinth and says, I have laid the foundation and another builds on it. What foundation did Paul the apostle lay for the church in Corinth? It was not himself! He says in vs. 11, For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ. The foundation of Paul the apostle in Corinth was Jesus Christ. If contemporary apostles wish to be legitimate, they must follow the example of Paul and not preach themselves, but Jesus Christ.

This coincides with Jesus’ response to Peter’s revelation of Him as the Christ, the Son of the Living God in Matt. 16:13-18. Jesus commends Peter for his revelation, saying,
Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you that you are Peter (petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The Greek word for “Peter” in this passage is petros, which means a little rock or pebble. The Greek word for “rock” is petra and refers to a large massive stone. With a play on these words, Matthew has Jesus saying, You are petros (a small rock or pebble), and on this petra (a large massive stone) I will build my Church. The foundation on which Jesus said he would build His Church was not a little rock like Peter, but the massive foundation stone that is the revelation of who He is, i.e., Himself.

What It Means to Be “Apostolic”

Like the early church, the church today must also continue steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching. How? By hearing and adhering to the original apostolic message that has been preserved for us in the New Testament. This message belongs to the Church of every generation and every Christian has the privilege and responsibility of bearing witness to this original apostolic message of Jesus Christ. When presented in its purity and clarity this message will be as powerful and revolutionary today as it was in the 1st century. This is how we lay the foundation of the Church in the 21st century.

No church, therefore, can rightfully call itself apostolic if is preoccupied with its own power, prestige and importance. No church can call itself apostolic if it is continually distracted with novel and faddish teachings and trends. Only a people committed to proclaiming the original, apostolic message of Jesus preserved in the New Testament can rightfully be called apostolic today.

An old hymn sums it up well:

The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord
She is His new creation by water and the word
From heaven He came and sought her to be His holy bride
With His own blood He bought her and for her life He died

THE NEW GNOSTIC JESUS

Take heed that no one deceive you, for many will come in My name saying, “I am the Christ,” and will deceive many. - Jesus

Do you know the real Jesus? If you are depending on TV preachers for knowledge of Jesus, you may find yourself falling short. Benny Hinn recently preached a message about Jesus at a conference in Sweden that his friend and host, Ulf Ekman, said on his blog, “went far beyond what I see as classic Christian faith and sound doctrine.” “It was not just some Gnostic elements,” Ekman said, “it was too much pure Gnosticism.” Ekman wisely encouraged his audience to read their Bibles and compare what Benny said about Jesus with what Scripture says about Him. He also talked to Benny personally about the error and expressed hope that he listened and took it to heart.

The Resurgence of the Gnostic Jesus

Gnosticism, which is experiencing a resurgence in our post-modern world, values spirit over matter and personal, subjective experience over objective truth and reality. Because of this, the early Gnostics denied that Jesus had a real physical body, claiming, instead, that He was a spirit and only appeared to have a physical body. This same approach is rampant in our world today where the real Jesus of Scripture who not only comforts, but challenges and confronts, is exchanged for a spiritual, New Age/Gnostic Jesus who is offensive to no one and can be made to fit into any world-view.

Oprah Winfrey, for example, has popularized a Gnostic (New Age) spiritual Jesus that can be discovered within every person’s consciousness. She has helped popularize the New Age author, Echkhart Tolle, and his book, New Earth, in which he presents Jesus as a Spiritual Master, along with Buddha and others, who have tried to help humanity discover the “Christ consciouness” or “God consciousness” that is already residing within every person. For Tolle, Gnosticism was a positive movement, representing a rediscovery of the “original teaching,” which for him seems to be a mysterious, mystical truth that lies deep within the human concsiousness beyond the reach of words and intellect (which makes one wonder why he bothers writing his books).

In this same vein of Gnostic thinking, Deepak Chopra, the well-known Indian medical doctor and purveyor of Eastern mysticism, recently published a book entitled Jesus. Chopra admits that the Jesus of his book cannot be found in the Bible. Where did he get his Jesus? He says that he researched the cultural, political, and religious contexts of Jesus’ time. “Then I went into incubation, meditation, and I allowed this story to unfold.” Another Gnostic Jesus!

In a similar fashion, a Gnostic Jesus can emerge with Christian mystics who prefer the spiritual Jesus they encounter in a mystical state of contemplative prayer to the Jesus that is revealed in Scritpure. Indeed, in this post-modern world where every person’s experience is truth for them, it is easy for visions of Jesus to emerge that are divorced from truth and reality, often the product of someone’s over-active imagination.

The Only Reliable Revelation of Jesus

The only reliable revelation of Jesus is the one found in Scripture, and every other revelation must be subjected to this one. Jesus Himself clearly taught this to His disciples. For example, Luke 24:13-32 records the story of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to two of His disciples as they walked the seven miles from Jerusalem to Emmaus. The two disciples did not recognize Jesus in His resurrected body and they shared with Him their sadness and disillusionment because the One they thought was the Messiah had just been crucified in Jerusalem.

Jesus responded by saying, Oh foolish ones and slow of hear to believe in all that the Prophets have spoken. The Jews of Jesus’ day referred to their Scriptures in various ways: “The Law and the Prophets,” “Moses and the Prophets,” and sometimes by simply, “the Prophets.” The reference here to the Prophets is a reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. In other words, Jesus tells them that the reason they are so disillusioned about what has just happened can be traced to the fact that they do not adequately know the Christ/Messiah of Scripture.

Luke then says, And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luke 24:25-27). In other words, during this approximate two hour walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus Jesus spent the entire time taking these two disciples from Genesis to Malachi, showing them the Christ (Himself) in every book of the Old Testament.

Think of what He could have shared with them, but did not. He had just come out of the tomb where He had experienced the greatest demonstration of God’s power ever known. He had seen Satan’s grip on humanity broken. He had seen mighty angels at work rolling away the stone. But during this approximate two-hour walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus, He mentioned none of these things. Instead, He gave priority to going through the Scriptures, making sure that they knew the Christ of Scripture. For Jesus, the most important revelation the disciples could have of Him was the revelation from Scripture.

Paul’s Modus Operandi

Although Paul, at the time of his conversion, had a supernatural encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, he too knew that the ultimate revelation of Jesus is the one in Scripture. In describing Paul’s ministry in the synagogue in Thessalonica, Luke says,
Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ” (Acts 17:3-4).
Notice that “reasoning from the Scriptures” about the true identity of Jesus was Paul’s "custom," i.e., the normal way in which he carried out his ministry. In Thessalonica, Paul met with much opposition to his message of the Jesus of Scripture, but the problem was not with the message but with the hearts of the hearers.

From Thessalonica Paul and Silas traveled to Berea where they met a more fair-minded response than they had found in Thessalonica. Luke says, in Acts 17:11, that the Bereans, Received the word with all readiness and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether those things were so. Notice that the determining factor in the Bereans decision was not how well Paul and Silas preached, or whether they felt goose bumps, or whether they saw miracles. The Holy Spirit commended the Bereans because they used Scripture as the final standard in judging the message of Paul and Silas.

Paul later traveled to Ephesus and, using this same approach of presenting Christ from the Scriptures, saw such a move of God that the economy of the city, which was based on idolatry, began to collapse. Luke sums up the success of his ministry in Ephesus by saying, So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed (Acts 19:20). Paul discovered that the real power is in preaching the Christ of Scripture.

Although Paul had many supernatural experiences of God's power and at least two supernatural encounters with Christ, except for the rare occasion, he avoids mentioning these in his letters. We only know of them because Luke included them in his historical account of early Christianity. For Paul, the revelation of Jesus in Scripture was what mattered and he discovered that God works powerfully when the Christ of Scripture is boldly proclaimed. Hopefully, the Church today will rediscover this same truth.

Martin Luther’s Vision of “Another Jesus”

Martin Luther found the revelation of Christ in Scripture to be the only protection against being led astray by a mystical, Gnostic Jesus. For example, while in intense prayer one day, he suddenly saw a shining vision on the wall of Jesus, with the wounds of His passion, looking down upon him. Luther, who had been an Augustinian monk, at first thought it was a heavenly vision, but changed his mind when he noted that the person in the vision was not compatible with the Christ he knew from Scripture. He said,

"Therefore I spoke to the vision thus: 'Begone you, confounded devil. I know no other Christ than He who was crucified, and who in His Word is presented unto me.' Whereupon the image vanished, clearly demonstrating from whom it came.'"

Conclusion

I grew up in a Pentecostal church that valued personal encounters with the Holy Spirit and, through the years, have grown in my appreciation for the dynamic work of the Holy Spirit in my life and in the lives of others. However, when it comes to the all-important task of knowing the real Jesus, we cannot rely on personal experiences or esoteric visions. We must be firmly grounded in the Christ of Scripture. Only by acquainting ourselves with the real Jesus of the Bible will we avoid being led astray by the many Gnostic/false christs that Jesus Himself said would appear in the last days.

For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. (Matt. 24:4,5,24).

TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT

Politics aside, one thing the Shirley Sherrod incident demonstrated was how words and sentences lifted out of their context can be so easily infused with meaning they do not have within their context. And this leads to a very serious question. How guilty are we in the body of Christ—especially preachers—of lifting Bible verses out of their context and infusing them with meaning that Jesus, Paul, Peter and others never intended? If it is such a serious matter to take a government employee out of context, how much more the Living God!