Chapter 14.14

Mega Mysticism’s Abuse of Biblical Passages

 

Table of Topics

A) Introduction

B) The “Pull” of the Father John 6:44

C) The “Voice” of Christ John 8:46-47; 9:39-10:28

D) The Counsel of God Ps 16:7; 73:24; 48:14

E) The Comfort of God 2 Cor 1:3-4

F) The “Peace of God” John 14:27; Col 3:15; Phil 4:7

F.1) The Uses of “Peace” in Scripture

F.2) The Practical Peace of Proper Reasoning

F.3) The “Peace of Christ” in Colossians 3:15

F.4) The “Peace of God” in Philippians 4:7

F.5) The Peace from Christ in John 14:27

F.6) No Peace from Circumstances in 2 Corinthians 2:13

F.7) The Practical Dangers of Relying on Feelings

Extras & Endnote

Primary Points

• There is no command, example, or instruction in all of Scripture regarding a conversational relationship with God.
• Even mega mystics admit this to some extent when they tell us that one must learn by trial and error how to correctly receive and recognize this extrabiblical communication
• The reference to the Father drawing people to Him (John 6:44), is speaking of the need for God to drag people to Him for salvation, not giving an example of inspired urgings the Spirit may give a Christian now as Bill Hybels teaches.
• When Jesus spoke of His sheep hearing His voice (John 10:27), He was speaking of their salvation and conversion experience, not extra-biblical revelation as Blackaby teaches.
• References to the “counsel” of God refer to Scripture.
• The “peace” of the Spirit is not available for amoral, extra-biblical decisions as Charles Swindoll teaches.
• Many biblical passages that mega mystics might use to refer to a peace that guides us in extra-biblical decisions actually apply to the forgiveness we have with God, peace in our relationships with others, and the release of anxiety because we trust in the biblical promises of God.
• Experiencing peace in Scripture is often a matter of settled moral reasoning with our conscience.
• There is a peace that comes from settled logical reasoning that seems too unspiritual to many to admit its proper value.
• Unfortunately only decisions that turned out to be good ones are used in mega mysticism as examples of the Spirit giving extra-biblical revelation and supernatural peace, even though people have thought and felt the same when they made decisions that turned out to be bad.
• The “comfort” that Paul “received from God” came through the presence of Titus, not some private, direct mystical experience with God.
• Paul’s reference to letting the “peace of Christ rule in your hearts” (Col 3:15) is not referring to a peace related to decision making, but a peace related to loving one another.
• The “peace of God” (Phil 4:7) promised in the midst of anxiety is a result of trusting the biblical promises of God.
• Essentially the mega mystical view of peace is a reliance on feelings to authenticate extra-biblical decisions.

A) Introduction

In the previous chapters we discussed biblical characters, particularly Apostles and Prophets, that are used as biblical support for mega mysticism. It was argued there that there is no support for extra-biblical divine revelation through some “inner voice,” nor for the common expectation of miraculous revelation through visions or voices. Here, we will evaluate biblical passages used particularly to support the idea that extra-biblical divine revelation is to be the constant expectation of the Christian. ^[1] In other words, are there biblical promises or instruction to back up the mega mystical claim of Dallas Willard who writes:

[T]he interior or inner voice . . . is the preferred and most valuable form of individualized communication for God’s purposes. God usually addresses individually those who walk with him in a mature, personal relationship using this inner voice.^[2]

If the Holy Spirit truly is in the business of providing direct divine revelation apart from Scripture to us today, then all agree this would be an incredibly important aspect of the Christian life. In fact, to misunderstand such an issue would automatically put us constantly outside of God’s will because we are missing out on a whole other way He desires to communicate His commands apart from Scripture. Accordingly, one would also expect abundant and clear instruction on this extra-biblical mode of divine communication.

However, it simply is not there. There is no command, example, or instruction in all of Scripture regarding a conversational relationship with God. What else would we say is so essential in the Christian life for which there is no biblical command for? The very best biblical support that mega mysticism can offer is claiming that God will interact with us in the same miraculous manner as He did Christ and the Apostles and Prophets. As noted, this unbiblical, perhaps arrogant, and certainly dangerous claim has been dealt with in the previous chapters.

The second best biblical support that mega mysticism can offer is to assume that Scriptures speaking of God leading us or the Spirit working in us are best interpreted as describing the extra-biblical divine revelation of God in amoral matters. Once again, it is vital for mega mysticism to find clear support that God wants to mystically guide us in extra-biblical amoral matters, because it is simply ludicrous to suggest we need more moral revelation such as to be loving or holy than what Scripture, our New Nature, and our conscience already give us. What mega mysticism really needs for biblical support is nowhere in Scripture.

For example, we find many verses on the value of Scripture as a revelation and also specific instructions for how we are to interact with it and properly use it as an instrument of divine revelation (cf. Pastoral Epistles). There is absolutely no such instruction regarding the reception of extra-biblical divine revelation. Likewise, Scripture speaks a lot about the value of the purely moral revelation residing in our Spirit-indwelled New Nature, and how to live according to it (cf. Rom 6-8; Eph 4-5; Gal 5). But again, there is no such instruction for the idea of extra-biblical divine revelation. The same could be said of other God-ordained sources of divine revelation including our conscience, God-ordained authorities, and God-given spiritual gifts. But there is nothing that prescribes divine/human mental telepathy or the proper recognition and interpretation of God working in our circumstances as a means of divine revelation for the purpose of decision making.

Even mega mystics admit this to some extent when they tell us that one must learn by trial and error how to correctly receive and recognize this extrabiblical communication, and the guidelines they give are always extra-biblical themselves. Simply put, there is nothing in Scripture that says one must learn how to recognize extra-biblical revelation in the form of mental impulses, impressions, or circumstances, nor are there any guidelines for doing so. We would ask then, how in the world could Willard say, “[T]he interior or inner voice . . . is the preferred and most valuable form of individualized communication for God’s purposes”? If such extra-biblical divine revelation were such a critical way of life for the Christian as Willard and scores of others claim, wouldn’t we expect at least as much biblical instruction regarding it as we have on handling Scripture, our New Nature, the conscience, and other prescribed forms of divine revelation?

In the end, we agree with M. Blaine Smith who writes in his book, Knowing God’s Will:

There is . . . no clear statement in the Old or New Testament telling us that we should attempt to discern God’s will merely through intuition. There are several verses which are popularly used to support inward guidance as the prime means of knowing God’s will, but when examined in context they are found not to be dealing with the notion at all. ^[3]

In the discussion below, then, we examine such proof texts popularly used to support mega mysticism.

B) The “Pull” of the Father: John 6:44

Christ says in John 6:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws [elkusē] him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:44)

Bill Hybels gives a mega mystical interpretation of this verse when he writes:

God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, draws and loves and tugs and urges and leads seekers to the cross. If you’re a Christian, you probably can remember that tug from God which led you first to the cross, where you acknowledged that Christ paid for your sin, and then to repentance, forgiveness and newness of life. The wonderful thing is, even after you’re a Christian, God keeps tugging! ^[4]

At least Pastor Hybels admits this verse in its original context concerned salvation, not guidance. But then, he attempts to make it apply to the latter anyway. This is again, because there are no verses of Scripture specifically and originally applying to divine mystical guidance, and verses must be given a secondary meaning to find any. Nonetheless, several comments can be made regarding Pastor Hybel’s application of this verse.

First, the idea of “drawing” or gently tugging is not communicated in this verse. The NIV translation of God “drawing” someone to Christ means much more than inviting or coaxing. The word is elkusē which the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BAGD) defines as: “To move an object . . . with implication that the object being moved is incapable of propelling itself or in the case of persons is unwilling to do so voluntarily.” Accordingly, it us used in this way in John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and James 2:6. What Christ is really saying is that God drags people by His power to Christ. Accordingly, this does not reflect mere communication or coaxing as Pastor Hybels suggests.

Accordingly, the obvious phenomena that Christ is speaking of is the conviction of sin (cf. John 16:7-11) and the mental liberation (cf. Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 4:3-6) that occurs in the process of regeneration to salvation. As we have discussed thoroughly elsewhere, the “tugging” of God in salvation does not involve revelation or “inspiration,” but regeneration, so that the Gospel being communicated through natural means can be understood and accepted by our Spirit-liberated reason. ^[5] If, then, Jesus is not talking about some sort of tugging, urging, or revelation/inspiration occurring at the time of our salvation, then His words certainly cannot be applied to something similar occurring in the Christian’s life.

Therefore, if we truly remember what we experienced when God drew us to Himself for salvation, we will wonder why Hybels is suggesting this as a good example of how God wants to provide guiding revelation to us. Many of us were simply not even aware of what was happening in our lives, and it is only in hindsight that we can see divine intervention in our lives in the process of our salvation. Accordingly, to use this as an example of extra-biblical revelation by which we can receive immediate instruction from God now is bad hermeneutics. When Jesus referred to the Father drawing people to Him, He was speaking of the need for God to drag people to Him for salvation, not giving an example of inspired urgings and tugs the Spirit may give a Christian now.

 

C) The “Voice” of Christ: John 8:46-47; 9:39-10:28; Rev 3:20

John 8:47 is commonly used in mega mystical writings as a proof text. Here Christ says, “He who belongs to God hears what God says.” The idea is that there is this steady stream of divine revelation apart from Scripture flowing to us, and because we are Christians we should be able to “tap into it.” However, Christ is not talking about the kind of revelation that mega mystics claim is occurring today in the form of guidance for decision making. On the contrary, in context, Christ was in a heated debate with unregenerated skeptics who believed they were children of God (cf. vs. 41-42), and that Jesus was demon-possessed (cf. vs. 48-49). Jesus was saying they could not hear the message of the Kingdom, and the testimony about Who He really was (cf. v. 42). The reason they could not hear what Christ was teaching was not because they were disobedient, insensitive, or unbelieving Christians, but because they were deaf, blind, spiritually dead children of the devil (cf. vs. 43-44). What Christians have heard and received is the Gospel, not subsequent extra-biblical revelations.

The same context of hearing the Gospel applies to another passage commonly used as a proof text for mega mysticism. In John 10 we read several statements similar to v. 27 where Jesus says: “My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me” (cf. vs. 2, 4, 8, 16). M. Blaine Smith reflects a popular application of this passage when he writes:

There are numerous statements throughout the Bible which point directly to God’s sovereign initiative in guidance. . . . We find this picture developed most extensively in John 10, one of the most inspiring New Testament statements on guidance. ^[6]

Dr. Blackaby certainly gives this passage a mega mystical twist when he writes:

As we seek to follow God’s will, we want to know God is speaking before we act. God’s voice can take many forms, so we want to be open to hearing from him in any way he chooses to speak. At the same time we want to be absolutely sure whose voice we hear. Could it be God? Is it satan trying to deceive us? Are we simply hearing what we want to hear? Is someone trying to manipulate us? The good news is that those who belong to Christ can discern his voice. Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd. I know My own sheep, and they know Me . . . . My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10: 14, 27 HCSB) . . . .

Satan met Jesus in the wilderness and made three unsuccessful attempts to snare him (Matt. 4; Luke 4). Jesus was able to sidestep the traps because he knew his Father’s voice so intimately. . . .

Question: Will people always know when God is speaking to them? Answer: Jesus said his sheep would know his voice (John 10:4-5, 14, 27). ^[7]

Dr. Blackaby obviously teaches that we can confidently hear from God apart from Scripture. How then do we know that such extra-biblical revelation is from God? Well, mega mystics simply claim we’ll just know, and John 10 contains a promise of this very thing. On the contrary, no it doesn’t. Contrary to Dr. Blackaby, Christ is not instructing us on how we can figure out what subjective, extra-biblical voices in our head sounds most like Christ.

First, few would claim that such an interpretation is actually reflected in their real life such that they constantly hear Jesus speaking to them in an audible voice, like a sheep might hear a shepherd. In fact, such a claim would seem quite odd to most. Secondly, no widely known commentators we know of are willing to interpret Christ this way either.

Rather, most see the primary meaning of Christ’s words to be referring to the elect who will receive the Gospel and be saved. There are many indications in the passage that the context is salvation, not personal guidance. First, immediately before Christ’s allegory about the good shepherd, Jesus tells the Pharisees, the bad shepherds, “I have come into this world, so that the blind will see” (John 9:39). Secondly, John records that Christ’s hearers “did not understand what He was telling them” with this “figure of speech” regarding the good shepherd. Jesus replies that the point of His story is:

I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.  ⁸All who ever came before Me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.  ⁹I am the gate; whoever enters through Me will be saved [not confidently guided in amoral, extra-biblical matters of life]. (10:7-9)

In the context of the non-Jews who would be saved, Jesus says: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to My voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” The result of listening to Christ’s voice here is salvation, not personal guidance. Likewise, a few verses later, Jesus seems to clearly imply that the result of not hearing His voice is damnation, not misdirection. John records:

The Jews gathered around Him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in My Father’s name speak for Me, but you do not believe because you are not My sheep. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of My hand. (John 10:24-28).

Therefore, it seems clear that the context of Christ’s allegory regarding His sheep listening to His voice is salvation, not personal guidance. And when we got saved, most of us did not hear the voice of Christ and the Gospel through some mystical means, but rather a human speaking to us (cf. Rom 10: 14-17).

Others have used Revelation 3:20 to suggest Jesus speaks to us apart from Scripture. John records Christ saying to the Laodicean church:

[B]e earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with Me. (Rev 3:19-20)

Once again, the context is clearly a call for salvation, not personal direction. Christ describes the people as “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (v. 17), which cannot describe forgiven and regenerated children of God. ^[8]

Of course, many experience an especially emotional conversion to Christ and no doubt being regenerated from spiritual death, having our devil-darkened reason replaced with our Spirit-liberated reason, being healed of our spiritual blindness and deafness, and having the Holy Spirit come to indwell us, all make for a miraculous and memorable experience. But it is faulty theology to suppose that even in our conversion experience Christ actually “spoke” to us apart from Scripture or that He continues to today.

D) The Counsel of God: Ps 16:7; 73:24; 48:14

We have already dealt with the popular but erroneous view of the Holy Spirit as a Counselor, and demonstrated the mistranslation of the Greek paraklēte behind this misperception. ^[9] However, there are other times in Scripture that the writer implies receiving some sort of direct counsel from God. ^[10] For example, David writes, “I will bless the LORD Who has counseled [yaats: “counsel, advice”] me; Indeed, my mind instructs me in the night” (Ps 16:7). Even John Calvin commented on this verse that it, “doubtless means secret inspirations.” ^[11] And indeed, as a man who had received divine revelations, this could be what David is referring to, but it would not be normative for us then. ^[12]

However, a better explanation is that David was referring to the divine counsel he found in the Scriptures, and which he meditated on in the night. This would seem implied in the first verses of the first Psalm:

Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel [etsah: “counsel, advise”] of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the [written] law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night. (Ps 1:1-2)

Here, “the counsel of the wicked” is directly compared with the counsel of the “blessed” which is “in the [written] law of the Lord,” and on which he or she “meditates day and night.” Likewise, Psalm 119 repeatedly refers to being counseled and instructed by meditation on God’s word. And indeed, quiet meditation on God’ word is often a powerful thing, providing life changing insights, but it does not require anything the mega mystics claim is so vital.

Indeed, God certainly does counsel us, but it is not normally, if ever, through mental telepathy. Rather, Scripture speaks of God personally counseling us through Scripture (cf. Ps 119:24; Prov 22:20), wise people (Prov 11:14; 13:14, 20; 15:22; etc.), and even Nature (cf. Isa 28:23-9).

Since we have no example or description in all of Scripture of God counseling people through some sort of divine/human mental telepathy, it is better to interpret Scripture with Scripture.

Likewise, the Prophet Asaph (cf. 1 Chron 25:2) writes, “You guide me with Your counsel, and afterward You will take me into glory” (Ps 73:24). Again, we must be careful in making the revelatory experiences of a Prophet normative for ourselves. In fact, Asaph is most likely referring to the divine revelation he received regarding the “final destiny” of the wicked which he received when he “entered the sanctuary of God” (v. 17) and which he records as authoritative doctrine in this Psalm (cf. vs. 17-20). Again, it would be irresponsible to interpret Asaph’s revelatory experience as a Prophet of God as a promise or prescription for extra-biblical divine revelation for Christians in general.

Finally, we read the wonderful promise in Psalm 48, “For this God is our God for ever and ever; He will be our guide even to the end” (v. 14). But again, there is no need to assume that such guidance would not come through Scripture, or His sovereign control over our lives.

E) The Comfort of God: 2 Cor 1:3-4

Paul relates to the Corinthians:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, ⁴ Who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. (2 Cor 1:3-4)

Sounds like he had some amazing “quiet time” and private individual experience with God doesn’t it? But we believe careful study reveals otherwise. First, Paul goes into more detail about his “troubles” when he writes:

We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. (2 Cor 1:8)

Of this time in Asia, Paul writes:

Now when I went to Troas to preach the Gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me, ¹³ I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said good-by to them and went on to Macedonia. (2 Cor 2:12-13)

Notice that the Apostle’s distress was so great that he left a place where he had found “the Lord had opened a door for” him “to preach the Gospel.” And why could he not find any “peace of mind” there? “Because I did not find my brother Titus there.” Shouldn’t the presence of God been enough to comfort the Apostle and enable him to do ministry? Apparently not.

On leaving “Troas” and going “on to Macedonia” the Apostle writes:

For when we came into Macedonia, this body of ours [still] had no rest, but we were harassed at every turn—conflicts on the outside, fears within. ⁶ But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, ⁷ and not only by his coming but also by the comfort you had given him. He told us about your longing for me, your deep sorrow, your ardent concern for me, so that my joy was greater than ever. (2 Cor 7:5-7)

What was “the comfort” the Apostle had “received from God” 1:4)? What enabled the Apostle to go from despairing “even of life” (1:8) to “joy . . . greater than ever” (7:7)? A private revelation from God? An ecstatic, emotional experience when alone with God? No. The presence, love, and encouragement of another human being. And this is precisely why “we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God.” Not because we have had some sort of mystical experience, but because we have the ability to share the love and written word of God for the encouragement of one another. ^[13]

F) The “Peace of God”: John 14:27; Col 3:15; Phil 4:7

F.1) The Uses of “Peace” in Scripture

The concept of an inner peace with God as an indication of the mystical leading of the Spirit is also common in mega mysticism. Gordon Smith, in his book on divine guidance writes:

Now we come to the heart of discernment-the matter of peace. Christians who have made a decision often say they feel peace regarding the choice. . . . . It is true that we seek peace when we make critical choices. It is in peace that we know or recognize the inner witness of the Spirit. ^[14]

Henry Blackaby also communicates this idea in the following way:

When someone shares a [extra-biblical] word from God for your life, seek confirmation from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit residing within you will verify truth. There may be times when people pronounce “truth,” but the Spirit does not give you peace about their words. Listen carefully to what the Spirit is saying. The Spirit knows the mind of God, and he knows what lies within people’s hearts. If the Spirit makes you uneasy about what someone is saying, pay attention to his promptings and follow his guidance. ^[15]

According to Dr. Blackaby, some basic guidelines can help you determine whether you are responding to a good opportunity or to God’s will.

Second, seek peace. Do you know how inner peace feels? You will feel tremendous peace when you are in God’s will and great unrest when you are not. ^[16]

Of course a fruit of the Spirit is “peace” (Gal 5:22), but this peace only pertains to moral, biblical matters, not amoral extra-biblical matters. Again, Dr. Blackaby and other mega mystics are claiming that the peace of the Spirit will activate when you make an extra-biblical decision like where to go to school, what car to buy, etc. Accordingly, it is virtually impossible to interpret Dr. Blackaby and mega mystics in any other way except that the test of truth is our feelings. Here again, we have full-blown mega mysticism which would lead us to the pagan maxim: “It can’t be wrong ‘cause it feels so right.”

Likewise, Charles Swindoll reflects a common misunderstanding of the promise in Colossians 3:15 when he writes:

Finally, God leads us into His will by giving us an inner assurance of Peace. “And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts,” Paul writes to the Colossians, “to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful” (Colossians 3:15). God’s inner assurance of peace will act as an umpire in your heart. Although peace is an emotion, I have found it wonderfully reassuring as I’ve wrestled with the Lord’s will. This God-given peace comes in spite of the obstacles or the odds, regardless of the risk or danger. It’s almost like God’s way of saying, “I’m in this decision … trust Me through it.” ^[17]

Before addressing Colossians 3:15 and other Scriptures that speak of God’s peace, it is helpful to briefly note how the broad notion of peace is used in Scripture. Again, what we are looking for, as it relates to mega mysticism, is a promise or prescription in Scripture for the fact that a feeling of peace is an indication from the Holy Spirit that we have made the right decision in an amoral, extra-biblical matter. This is precisely how both Dr. Blackaby and Swindoll are applying it.

The first thing we encounter in a Bible study concerning “peace” is a rebuke of our tendency to internalize everything as if its most important application is simply to our private individual selves. Of course this appeals to American independence and individualism, but is a violation of the relationship-oriented Kingdom of God. Therefore the concept of peace in Scripture very often applies to our relationship with God and others.

Perhaps the foremost example of the former is Romans 5:1, “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is, of course, the most important peace we have, a foundational concept of peace in Scripture, and the context of several references to it (cf. Ps 85:4-9; Isa 53:5; Luke 1:76-79; 2:14; Acts 10:36; Rom 1:7; Eph 2:13-14; Phil 1:2; Col 1:20; Gal 6:16). It is even the context of Isaiah 55:12 which reads, “You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace.” This verse would be a good candidate for the kind of biblical support mega mysticism is looking for. However, just a few verses earlier God is telling the nation of Israel:

Seek the LORD while He may be found; call on Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will freely pardon. (Isa 55:6-7)

It is no doubt because the nation would repent that they would “go out in joy and be led forth in peace,” with God. This is not a proof text for claiming that God leads us in amoral extra-biblical matters by or through a feeling of inner peace.

Obviously, another major application of the concept of peace is in our relationships with one another (cf. Prov 17:1; Matt 5:19; 10:34; Mark 9:50; Rom 12:18; 14:19; 2 Cor 13:11; Eph 4:3; 1 Thess 5:13; 2 Tim 2:22; Heb 12:14; 1 Pet 3:10). Ignoring this common context may lead to a mega mystical interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 3:16, “Now may the Lord of peace Himself give you peace at all times and in every way.” However, the Apostle Paul had just finished giving strong instructions regarding the need to excommunicate some people in order that the Thessalonian church could experience peace (cf. vs. 6, 10, 14). Therefore, this is not a promise of Christ giving us a feeling of peace because we’ve made the right amoral extra-biblical decision, but rather, as the renowned NT scholar John Stott interprets it, “Only His peace could bring an end to the Thessalonian [public] conflict.” ^[18]

Such peace in the Church is also related to the assembly of Christians in a church service. In the context of correcting supposed “inspired” people and women in general from disrupting such a meeting, Paul reminds the Corinthians, “God is not a God of disorder but of peace” [in a church meeting] (1 Cor 14:33; cf. vs. 34-39).

This relational peace is also often spoken of in terms of the cessation of war, political peace, freedom from persecution, and even wild beasts (cf. Lev 26:6; Job 5:23; Ps 29:11; Prov 16:7; Isa 26:11-12; Jer 33:6-7; Rom 16:20; 1 Tim 2:2).

While a significant application of the concept of peace in Scripture applies to relationships with others, the Scriptures speak of an internal emotion of peace as well. This is particularly in relation to its emotional opposite which is worry or anxiety (cf. Phil 4:6-7). Nevertheless, this personal experience of peace is still completely dependent on our relationship with God. However, this peace does not come from experiencing some sort of extra-biblical revelation to guide us in extra-biblical decisions, but rather, as we trust God’s promises and obey His commands, both of which are fully communicated in Scripture.

For example, the Apostle Peter is certainly instructing us on how to experience the peace of God when he tells us, “Cast all your anxiety on Him because He cares for you” (1 Pet 5:7). How specifically do we do that? Trusting God’s biblical promises in the midst of our difficulties. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul writes, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in Him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom 15:13). Likewise, the Prophet Isaiah had said, “You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in You” (Isa 26:3). Trusting the character and promises of God as revealed in Scripture is a very important concept regarding our internal experience of peace and it has nothing to do with some sort of internal “umpire” that gives us assurance in amoral, extra-biblical decision making.

Likewise, obedience to God’s commands is among the very best ways to experience this same peace of God. God says through the Prophet Isaiah, “If only you had paid attention to My commands, your peace would have been like a river” (Isa 48:18), and this isn’t talking about extra-biblical commands either. This is why, “’There is no peace,’ says the LORD, ‘for the wicked’” (Isa 48:22). It is the peace that comes from obeying the biblical commands of God that the Scriptures speak of instead of a peace that comes from following some supposed amoral, extra-biblical will or revelation of God (cf. Job 22:21; Ps 119:65; Isa 32:17-18; Rom 2:10; 14:17-18; 1 Thess 5:23).

A primary reason that obedience to biblical commands brings a sense of peace is our conscience. As we have written elsewhere, this is a woefully neglected topic in American Christianity and theology, but its workings explain a lot, and it is a major source of any emotional peace we may experience in our life. ^[19] Therefore, experiencing peace is often a matter of settled moral reasoning with our conscience.

Accordingly, we read in Proverbs:

Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. . . . Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace. (Prov 3:13-14, 17)

Such a passage could be seized upon to suggest there is an amoral extra-biblical wisdom available from God that will grant us a reassuring sense of peace if we find it and make decisions according to it. But as we demonstrate elsewhere, the concept of wisdom in Scripture is always moral (right vs. wrong), not amoral (i.e. which car to buy). And obviously, obeying such wisdom would bring peace.

At this point, let’s go back to where we started. There is a claim in mega mysticism, clearly reflected in Drs. Blackaby and Swindoll above, that we can discern the nature of amoral, extra-biblical issues by depending on a supernaturally induced emotion of peace that is granted by the Holy Spirit. Our first response to this claim has been to study what the Bible teaches on the sources of peace. While we have found no promises or precedent for a Holy Spirit-given peace for amoral, extra-biblical decisions, we have found several such promises for peace in the following areas: 1) a relational peace through reconciliation with God or people, 2) an internal peace through obeying biblical commands which alleviates our conscience, and 3) an internal peace through trusting biblical promises which alleviates our anxiety.

This understanding helps us to properly interpret the references to “peace” in Scripture. For example, we read in Galatians 5:22 that, “the fruit of the [Holy] Spirit is . . . peace.” Is this an allusion to the idea that when the Holy Spirit prompts us to choose something amoral and extra-biblical like a particular job, that He will also grant a peace to authenticate this revelation? On the contrary, several of the established biblical concepts of peace above could explain how and when we would experience this fruit of the Spirit, including salvation, reconciliation, and obedience.

In what follows, we will apply these biblical principles concerning peace in order to properly interpret some Scriptures that we believe are commonly misinterpreted in mega mysticism. What we will find is that the biblical concepts above fully suffice to explain these Scriptures and we have no need to put an unbiblical mega mystical twist to them. But first, we need to note another important concept of peace as it relates to our life.

F.2) The Practical Peace of Proper Reasoning

All of the above applications of peace have involved moral, biblical decisions in which God clearly communicates His will in Scripture and reinforces it through our Spirit-indwelled New Nature. We would suggest this is the only peace we need, or that is available, because the part of God’s will for our life that we need to know is completely found in Scripture. What the Holy Spirit or our conscience will grant us peace about is believing and obeying what God has revealed in Scripture.

How then will we experience peace in amoral, extra-biblical decisions like a career move? Not supernaturally, but in a more natural way. Just as our conscience gives us peace about moral decisions, so our logical reason grants us peace in wise amoral decisions. There is a peace that comes from settled logical reasoning that seems too unspiritual to many to admit its proper value. In other words, the “peace of God” in decision making is not something mystical or necessarily supernatural, but rather the natural result of following good moral reasoning (i.e. conscience) which resolves guilt, and correct logical reasoning which removes doubt.

Nevertheless, it is commonly claimed in mega mysticism that a sense of peace comes from the Holy Spirit because we are following some supposed extra-biblical, amoral direction of His. On the contrary, this completely ignores the enormous place God has ordained for the reasoning faculties He created us with for making decisions, which we have written on at length elsewhere. ^[20] Such a move illegitimately super-supernaturalizes something that actually occurs more naturally.

For example, we have elsewhere quoted the great Christian leader and Teacher Charles Swindoll who wrote in the context of experiencing peace in the midst of an amoral, extra-biblical decision supposedly prompted by the Spirit:

In my own life, as I mentioned earlier, my decision to accept the presidency of Dallas Seminary was not an easy one. Ultimately, it was an at-peace decision, but it was not what I would have wanted or chosen. . . . Except that God was busy convincing them-and, later, me, that I was the right person. Although it went against my own wishes at the time, I could not resist the sovereign, all-powerful prompting of the Holy Spirit. ^[21]

Accordingly, we wrote:

Finally, we wish Dr. Swindoll would have admitted that, in the end, he simply had more good reasons to do what he did, than otherwise. In other words, we would suggest that there was a lot more plain good ole logic and reasoning in his decision than what is reflected here. There is no need to claim that he was eventually convinced and persuaded to make his decision because “God was busy convincing” everybody involved through “the sovereign, all-powerful prompting of the Holy Spirit,” or that he “felt the necessity of reconsidering the invitation to Dallas Seminary” because God supernaturally inspired him to do so.

On the contrary, we wonder if a more careful analysis were made of the decision making process here, that it could all be explained in more natural ways. Including the fact that as Dr. Swindoll considered the facts of the decision with the logical and moral reasoning God had given him to make wise decisions, the reasons for the course he decided became more evident to him, and eventually outweighed the reasons to remain where he was. In other words, even this decision was, in reality, made in the same way that Dr. Swindoll makes dozens of decisions every day in which he would not claim some supernatural revelation for.

As we have discussed extensively elsewhere, even biblical faith is based on facts, evidence, and good reasoning, and anything short of this is foolishness. In the end, we feel peace about decisions because we have collected the facts and obtained enough good reasons for our decision, and it is the number of those good, logical reasons that persuades us and gives us peace, rather than some extra-biblical revelation of the Holy Spirit that is nowhere promised or prescribed in Scripture. ^[22]

F.3) The “Peace of Christ” in Colossians 3:15

Perhaps the most abused Scripture relating to mega mysticism is Colossians 3:15 where the Apostle Paul writes, “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace.” As noted above, Charles Swindoll uses this statement to suggest:

God leads us into His [amoral, extra-biblical] will by giving us an inner assurance of Peace. “And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts,” Paul writes to the Colossians, “to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful” (Colossians 3:15). God’s inner assurance of peace will act as an umpire in your heart. Although peace is an emotion, I have found it wonderfully reassuring as I’ve wrestled with the Lord’s will. This God-given peace comes in spite of the obstacles or the odds, regardless of the risk or danger. It’s almost like God’s way of saying, “I’m in this [amoral, extra-biblical] decision . . . trust Me through it.” ^[23]

Several responses are in order. First, remember that the author is writing this in the context of an amoral, extra-biblical decision such as whether or not to become the President of Dallas Theological Seminary. As we have noted above, we find no biblical promise or precedent that God will supernaturally grant the emotion of peace for such decisions. This is because we don’t need such peace to come supernaturally by the Spirit, but it can come more naturally through our conscience or logical reasoning.

Secondly, there is at least a hint in Dr. Swindoll’s quote, and in the above description of the author’s decision, of irrationality. In other words, there seems to be some suggestion that a supposed assurance directly from the Spirit will somehow make up for a lack of good logical reasons for a decision. Again, this isn’t even what biblical faith is based upon, and with such a doctrine, the Holy Spirit can be blamed for foolishness. ^[24]

Accordingly, only decisions that turned out to be good ones are used in mega mysticism as examples of the Spirit giving extra-biblical revelation and supernatural peace, even though people have thought and felt the same when they made decisions that turned out to be bad.

Nonetheless, we are still left with the question: Is Colossians 3:15 a biblical prescription for how to know if you have made an amoral, extra-biblical decision according to the will of God? Absolutely not. Accordingly, M. Blaine Smith writes:

Colossians 3:15 states: “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.” This is the most popular verse cited in favor of inward guidance. The Greek word for rule means “act as umpire,” and it is claimed that Paul is saying we should let peaceful feelings umpire our decision making. Examined in context, however, it is plain that this verse is not referring to a personal, subjective feeling of peace, but rather to the corporate reality of peace which should exist among believers. The verse does not relate to personal decision making. ^[25]

Unfortunately, we have here another case of proof texting to support mega mystical doctrine. Of course the stunted statement, “Let the peace of Christ [brabeuō: “act as umpire”] in your hearts” could suggest the idea of an internal peace Christ grants when we make the correct amoral and extra-biblical decision. And unfortunately, some modern translations reflect this. The GNB reads, “Peace . . . [will] guide you in the decisions you make” and the PME says, “Let the peace of Christ guide all your decisions.” However, these translations, and mega mysticism completely ignore the context of this statement, and that explains what the Apostle really meant.

The full statement is:

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.  ¹³Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.  ¹⁴And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

¹⁵Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.  ¹⁶Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.  ¹⁷And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. (Col 3:12-17)

There are several things in this very passage that speak against mega mysticism. First, it becomes obvious that Paul is not talking about an internal peace in verse 15 that occurs in the context of amoral, extra-biblical decision making, of which the Scriptures elsewhere say nothing about. Rather, these words reflect the common biblical theme of a relational peace that comes from the forgiveness and love that he exhorts them to in verses 12-14. This is made certain by the fact that Paul explicitly says, while we experience this peace in our hearts, it is in the context of being “members of one body [who] were called to peace” with one another. ^[26]

Secondly, no doubt peace would result from Paul’s next words which instruct us to, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” which means nothing more (or less!) than memorizing, meditating on, trusting, and obeying Scripture. Finally, instead of exhorting us to find some sort of personal divine will in the amoral extra-biblical decisions we are making, the Apostle simply exhorts us that in “whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” This reminds us, as we have discussed elsewhere, ^[27] that in amoral, extra-biblical issues God rarely has a will concerning what we do, but rather how and why we do it, which relate to the moral and biblical issues He is concerned about.

F.4) The “Peace of God” in Philippians 4:7

Another passage of Scripture that can be used to support the mega mystical idea that God will supernaturally grant a sense of peace in amoral extra-biblical decisions is Philippians 4:7. Its full context reads:

The Lord is near.  ⁶ Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.  ⁷And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. ⁸Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.  ⁹Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. (Phil 4:5-9)

Again, one could get the impression here that as we pray about amoral extra-biblical decisions, we will gain a conviction about what God’s will is, and a subsequent supernatural peace will confidently authenticate that we are being led by the Holy Spirit to the right decision. However, there are much better explanations for the peace being spoken of here, among those biblical principles discussed above. The most obvious one is the peace that comes from trusting the biblical promises of God. As noted above, “the Apostle Peter is certainly instructing us on how to experience the peace of God when he tells us, “Cast all your anxiety on Him because He cares for you” (1 Pet 5:7). How specifically do we do that? Trusting God’s promises in the midst of our difficulties.”

This is precisely (and only) what would enable us to “not be anxious about anything” as Paul instructs in Philippians 4:6. Those promises would include the one that Paul mentions in verse 5, “The Lord is near” (cf. Ps 34:18; 46:10-11; 145:18; 119:151 Matt 18:20; 28:20; Acts 18-9-10; 2 Tim 4:17). ^[28] Indeed, coming to a point through prayer, in which we truly trust the guarantee Christ gave us when He said, “surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age,” (Matt 28:20) would grant us, “the peace of God which transcends all understanding,” in whatever situation we are in. ^[29]

F.5) The Peace from Christ in John 14:27

Christ told His disciples in John 14:27:

Peace I leave with you; My peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

Once again, a phrase like, “My peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives” could be interpreted as a promise of emotional peace to assure us that we have made the right decision in an amoral extra-biblical matter. However, the context again tells us otherwise. The reason the disciples would have this peace from Christ is because of the promises and teachings He had given them in this very discourse. Just a few verses earlier He had told them:

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in Me.  ²In My Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.  ³And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with Me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:1-3)

It was with such sure and superior promises that Christ was giving them a peace that nothing in the world could give. Likewise, He tells them later in this discourse, “I have told you these things [in the “farewell discourse”], so that in Me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). The peace then that Christ promised them in John 14:27 was by virtue of the biblical promises and doctrines He taught them, and which we ourselves can claim. Therefore, this passage has nothing to do with a peace that Christ would supposedly grant in the context of making an amoral extra-biblical decision. ^[30]

F.6) No Peace from Circumstances in 2 Corinthians 2:13

The Apostle wrote the Corinthians:

Now when I went to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me, I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said good-by to them and went on to Macedonia. (2 Cor 2:12-12)

Gary Friesen remarks:

In 2 Corinthians 2:13, Paul said, “I had no rest for my spirit … ” The [mega mystical] view might argue that this was an instance where “lack of peace” was an indicator that it wasn’t God’s will to remain there. The passage itself neither says nor implies that conclusion. It wasn’t a “lack of peace” that prompted Paul’s decision as much as the circumstance of Titus’s absence. In that situation, reconnecting with Titus and resolving the problem in Corinth was a higher priority than launching a new work in Troas. Paul’s restlessness of spirit was produced by the difficulty of the circumstances, not an absence of leading from God. ^[31]

F.7) The Practical Dangers of Relying on Feelings

It is difficult to see the mega mystical view of peace as anything other than a reliance on feelings to authenticate amoral extra-biblical decisions. Hopefully the folly of this is clear, as we have written at length elsewhere, ^[32] including:

[O]ne wonders if anything has fueled and aided evil more than human emotion. It should never be forgotten that the emotional part of us is the most susceptible to the manipulations of our three arch-enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil. God’s primary and initial point of influence with us is in our will (desires) and reason (understanding). satan’s primary point of influence is our emotion (feelings). As Eldredge notes, “Many people have made a wreck of their lives by following an emotion without stopping to consider whether it was a good idea to do so. Neither adultery nor murder is a rational act.”

This is why it is so critical that our feelings are subjected to a will controlled by the Spirit and a mind controlled by the truth of reason, because both of these protect the emotional part of our “heart” from corrupting the other parts. Nothing God-pleasing or God-ordained occurs by our emotions acting independently from our will and reason. Such a perspective is to separate what God has joined together which, among other things, are the functions of the “heart.” It leads to empty emotionalism, a life with heat, but little light. ^[33]

Let us for example imagine a life in which we make decisions based on the idea that if the Holy Spirit is leading us to do something it will feel “right” and we will have peace about it. Would anyone ever evangelize a stranger? Confront someone when they are wrong? Discipline their children? Along these lines Gary Friesen remarks:

If all marriages were called off because of nervous grooms, there would be no weddings. Such “lack of peace” is normal when one faces a major new step in life. Some people experience lack of peace because of immaturity. Decisions entail responsibilities and result in consequences. An immature person may be unwilling to accept new responsibilities. That individual may resist even making the decision. And he will experience considerable anxiety. Such turmoil is not produced by the Holy Spirit saying “no” to a decision; it is the result of simply facing a difficult decision. Such inner anxiety reveals the need for emotional growth; it is not specific guidance from God. ^[34]

The point, obviously, is that we must obey and be responsible even when we don’t feel like it. We’re sure promoters of mega mysticism would heartily agree with this, but they seem contradictory in claiming that an emotion of peace supernaturally supplied by God is essential to ensuring we are making the right decisions in amoral extra-biblical matters. As we’ve said, a peace can certainly come through our conscience in moral matters and another kind of peace through our reasoning faculties in amoral matters. But mega mystics speak of a supernatural peace from the Holy Spirit in relation to amoral matters in which neither our conscience, nor the Scriptures would be a guide. We have found no Scriptures to support such an idea.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1. We claim there is no command, example, or instruction in all of Scripture regarding a conversational relationship with God. Do you agree or disagree and why?
2. Why do we claim mega mystics have to tell us that one must learn by trial and error how to correctly receive and recognize extrabiblical communication? Do you agree or disagree and why?
3. What is our interpretation of John 6:44? Do you agree or disagree and why?
4. What is our interpretation of John 10:27? Do you agree or disagree and why?
5. Why do we claim that references to the “counsel” of God in Scripture refer to Scripture? Do you agree or disagree and why?
6. What do we claim was the source of Paul’s “comfort” in 2 Corinthians? Do you agree or disagree and why?
7. How does mega mytical theology use the concept of peace?
8. What are several things we claim that the “peace” of God commonly refers to in Scripture that have nothing to do with mega mystical theology? What are examples? Do you agree or disagree and why?
9. What is our interpretation of Paul’s reference to letting the “peace of Christ rule in your hearts” (Col 3:15)? Do you agree or disagree and why?
10. What is our interpretation of the “peace of God” promised in Philippians 4:7? Do you agree or disagree and why?
11. What is our interpretation of the peace from Christ promised in John 14:27? Do you agree or disagree and why?
12. Why do we claim that essentially the mega mystical view of peace is a reliance on feelings to authenticate extra-biblical decisions? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Publications & Particulars

1. Elsewhere we have discussed verses pertinent to our topic which we will not include here. Ephesians 6:17 which speaks of the “sword of the Spirit which is the word of God” is discussed in section 3.5.C.2 where it is concluded that Paul is simply saying the word of God comes from the Spirit, as its source, not that it somehow “reinspires” us with the word in the moment.

   Paul writes in Philippians 2:13, “It is God Who is at work within you both to will and to act according to His good purpose.” While some might claim that this alludes to some sort of divine/human mental telepathy going on, we demonstrate in section 7.12.B.1 that the Apostle is speaking of the indwelling of the Spirit in our New Nature.

   Several other verses and concepts used in mega mysticism to support the idea of extra-biblical revelation through God planting thoughts in our mind are discussed in chapters 3.4 and 3.5 regarding the unbiblical nature of the supposed “testimony” and “illumination” of the Spirit. ↑

2. Dallas Willard, Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God (Intervarsity, 1999), 89, underlining added. ↑

3. M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God’s Will: Finding Guidance for Personal Decisions (Intervarsity, 1991), 166. ↑

4. Bill Hybels, Too Busy Not to Pray (InterVarsity, 1998), 139. ↑

5. For further discussion of the conversion process see chapters 4.15-4.16. ↑

6. M. Blaine Smith, 57. ↑

7. Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Broadman & Holman, 2003), 189-90, 257. ↑

8. Accordingly, Leon Morris comments on the state of those described in the Laodicean Church, specifically their lukewarmness toward Christ:

   ‘Outright denial is better than phoney piety’ (Orr). [For Christ] to prefer a rejection of the faith to the way the Laodiceans professed it, is startling to say the least (cf. 2 Pet 2:21). But to profess Christianity while remaining untouched by its fire is a disaster. There is more hope for the openly antagonistic than for the cooly indifferent. ‘There is no one farther from the truth in Christ than the one who makes an idle profession without real faith’ (Walvoord). Their coolness was a denial of all that Christ stands for. (Revelation (TNTC) [Eerdmans, 1999], 82). ↑

9. Regarding the popular but erroneous view of the Holy Spirit as a Counselor see section 14.13.B. ↑

10. While Psalm 32:8 is well known for promising divine counsel as well, it will be addressed in section 14.16.B. ↑

11. John Calvin interpreted God’s counsel here as the “illumination of the Spirit” at the time of David’s salvation, and said that the instruction in the night “doubtless means secret inspirations.” Perhaps, especially since David was one of the very few ever given divine revelation to write Scripture. However, as discussed elsewhere, we must be very careful to expect the same kind of revelatory experience of such a man. (cf. section 14.8.H). Keil and Delitzsch and Barnes have little that is helpful on this verse. ↑

12. Regarding divine revelation that David had received see section 14.11.H. ↑

13. Older commentators seemed reluctant to notice the communal nature of Christian encouragement in 2 Corinthians including Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, I.3; Calvin, Hodge, and Barnes (all at http://www.ccel.org). More recently, C. K. Barrett does not discuss this at all (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Hendrickson, 1973], 60-61).

    However, Colin Kruse has written: “in [2 Cor] 7:5ff, where Paul describes the events immediately preceding the writing of this letter, he speaks of the release from anxiety experienced when Titus joined him in Macedonia” (2 Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1987, repr. 1997], 60).

    Likewise, Paul Barnett writes regarding the source and nature of the comfort Paul received:

    God comforted Paul by Titus, who had been comforted by the Corinthians (7:6-7), enabling Paul in turn (by means of these words in this letter) to comfort the Corinthians—and indeed members of other churches—with the comfort of God. . . . Thus God’s “comfort” comes full circle among his people. . . .

    The closeness and reciprocity of fellowship within, and between, congregations as expressed here by Paul is rather pointed, given the Corinthians’ coolness to him at that time. It also calls into question the individualism of modern Christianity and the sense of remoteness within and among many contemporary churches. (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1997], 73).

    Nonetheless, Dr. Barnett adds:

    How does God comfort his people? Although the later reference [regarding Titus, 7:5ff] reveals God’s use of human intermediaries (7:6-7), in this verse there is no hint of such mediation. The exercise of “comfort” appears as a charisma, a concrete manifestation of the grace of God, a divine intervention. (Ibid.).

    In our opinion, Dr. Barnett should have stopped commenting when he pointed out the mediation of Titus. We believe we have demonstrated that this is the comfort Paul is referring to, and Dr. Barnett’s assumption that Paul is speaking of a private, exclusive experience with God is unwarranted and erodes the points he made previously. ↑

14. Gordon T. Smith, Listening to God in Times of Choice (Intervarsity, 1997), 50. ↑

15. Blackaby, 263. ↑

16. Ibid., 210. ↑

17. Charles Swindoll, The Mystery of God’s Will (Word, 1999), 49 ↑

18. John Stott, The Message of 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Intervarsity, 1994), 197. ↑

19. Regarding the biblical perspective on the value and purpose of the conscience see chapter 3.2. ↑

20. Regarding the enormous place God has ordained for the reasoning faculties He created us with for making decisions see chapter 4.4. ↑

21. Excerpt from section 14.2.L. ↑

22. Ibid. ↑

23. Swindoll, 49. ↑

24. Regarding the biblical fact that biblical faith is based upon reason see chapter 6.12-6.14. ↑

25. M. Blaine Smith, 166. ↑

26. As well, N. T. Wright comments:

    When love [commanded in v. 14] has its full effect in the community it will result in peace: Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. The second clause (which RSV renders, more literally, ‘to which indeed you were called in the one body’) indicates that ‘peace’ here is not [an] inward, individual peace of mind . . . but a peace which characterizes the community, the ‘body’, as a whole. (Colossians and Philemon [Eerdmans, 1986], 143)

    Likewise, Peter O’Brien remarks in his well regarded commentary, “Here peace occurs in an exhortation to the readers to let Christ’s peace hold sway in their lives as they relate to one another (note the context of vv. 11, 13 and 14). (Colossians, Philemon [Word, 1982], 204)

    Richard N. Longenecker, commenting on peace as a fruit of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 remarks: “peace . . . acts as an arbiter in their communal relationships” (Galatians [Word, 1990], 261) ↑

27. Regarding the fact that God rarely has a will in amoral, extra-biblical matters see discussion on His permissive will in section 14.5.B.3-4. ↑

28. Dr. O’Brien notes that “most recent exegetes understand the nearness of the Lord in a temporal sense and take [“the Lord is near” to mean] Jesus’ imminent parousia.” (The Epistle to the Philippians [Eerdmans, 1991], 489). Of course, Paul could be alluding to the fact that Christ’s future return will occur soon, and this too would be a biblical promise that would bring peace to an anxious heart. However, the references presented here lead us to lean toward a present relational nearness, such as the one Paul repeatedly experienced in his own life as described in Acts 18-9-10; 2 Tim 4:17. John Calvin agreed and does an excellent job of relating this meaning to the Philippian context (see Commentaries; online at http://www.ccel.org). See also F. F. Bruce, Philippians (NIBC) (Hendrickson, 1989). ↑

29. The Apostle’s reference to “the peace of God which transcends all understanding,” (Phil 4:7) could be taken as a rebuke of the peace that comes from proper moral and logical reasoning. On the contrary, we believe Dr. O’Brien is correct to understand the Apostle as referring to how wonderful this peace is, not its suprarationality:

    Paul describes God’s peace by means of a participial expression that is capable of being understood in two ways: (1) his peace accomplishes more than any human forethought or scheming can achieve, and so is far more effective in removing anxiety than any reasoning power (NEBmg); or (2) the peace of God is completely beyond all power of human comprehension (cf. RSV, GNB, JB, NIV, Moffatt, and Phillips [PME]).

    The Greek may be interpreted either way, and although both renderings make good sense, it has been argued that (1) is more in harmony with the context. Human reasoning results in continued doubt and anxiety; it cannot find a way out of the dilemma (cf. v. 6). God’s peace, by contrast, is effective in removing all disquietude. If, however, in explaining the nature of God’s peace Paul is focusing on its uniqueness rather than its relative superiority to human ingenuity, then (2) is the correct interpretation.

    The participle [uperechousa], with the rendering ‘be far beyond, excel’, supports this. Further, [panta noun], which means ‘all understanding’ (or possibly ‘every thought’) rather than ‘all planning’ or ‘all cleverness, inventiveness’ leads to the same conclusion. Accordingly, Paul is telling his readers that God’s peace or salvation that stands guard over them is more wonderful than they can imagine. (Cf. Eph. 3:20, where God is invoked as the one who can do ‘immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine’.)

    Although [uperechō] is on occasion used in polemical contexts (2:3; 3:8?), there is no such polemic here-either against Paul’s enemies who had an inflated view of their own knowledge or by way of subtle rebuke to those Philippians who are thought to have wanted to surpass their fellow Christians. His point in using [uperechō] at v. 7 is quite different as he seeks to encourage his Christian friends about the wonder of God’s peace that guards their lives. (Philippians, 496-7)

    In addition, any suggestion that peace could come apart from an understanding of truth ignores the biblical concept of faith. For further discussion of biblical faith see chapters 6.10-6.16. ↑

30. Accordingly, Barnes writes:

    It refers here particularly to the consolations which he gave to his disciples in view of his approaching death. He had exhorted them not to be troubled John 14:1, and he had stated reasons why they should not be. He explained to them why he was about to leave them; he promised them that he would return; he assured them that the Holy Spirit would come to comfort, teach, and guide them. By all these truths and promises he provided for their peace in the time of his approaching departure. (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament; online at http://www.ccel.org.) ↑

31. Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980), 218. ↑

32. Regarding the danger of allowing feelings to dictate decisions see section 4.6.C.2. ↑

33. Ibid. ↑

34. Friesen, 143. ↑