The Macedonian Vision; Acts 16:9-12
EvangelismLet me fly a kite here. I am not sure of this, so tell me what you think. In a previous post I argued that the "is Acts formative or normative" discussion is hermeneutically unhelpful. I think it is more nuanced than that and we shouldn't start by assuming that it isn't normative for reasons outside the Bible.
When the Holy Spirit came in Acts 2, Peter said it was the fulfilment of the Joel prophecy of God pouring His Spirit on all flesh. The purpose of the Spirit coming is power for world evangelisation (cf 1:8 and elsewhere). I take it that things like "your sons and daughters shall prophecy, your young men will see visions and your old men dream dreams" therefore is indicative of the work that the Spirit will do to further the gospel. Spiritual gifts and enduements of power for world evangelisation.
As far as I can see there are three visions from the Spirit in Acts, all for the sake of witness and world evangelisation: Stephen (for whom it is also glorious strengthening as he dies); Peter in Acts 10 seeing that God has accepted the Gentiles, allowing for gospel witness to them for the first time in Cornelius' house; and here with Paul where the consequence is to take the gospel to whole new spheres.
I previously argued that Luke tells Theophilus and us stuff not just for historical interest, but as indication of the way things are done. For example, how to set aside people when you hear the Spirit (in Acts 13 and Acts 16, so it wasn't a once off), or how to preach an evangelistic sermon to Jews (Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13). And now with the Macedonian vision we have one of the very few accounts of God actually doing what was promised in Acts 2. Do we conclude that, because there are few accounts, God acting like this is a one-off? In which case we don't expect him to do it today. Or do we read it as a main instructive example of a more universal principle given in Acts 2 (namely that because the Spirit has been poured on all flesh, people will see visions and dreams from the Spirit for world evangelisation)? In which case we may expect Him to do similar things today. Here are completely off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts:
1. It will turn on whether we think Acts as a whole is an outworking of Acts 2; and whether we think that it is a closed book that describes the events of the time or an open-ended book, the principles of which continue till the end of the Great Commission
2. Does Luke select his material in Acts as a whole to explain and illustrate the outworking of Acts 1-2? I think a case could be made for that, in which case we must relate everything in the whole of Acts back to God's purpose in giving the Spirit for world evangelisation
3. Paul, Silas and Timothy (and Luke) were not expecting the vision, but neither do they seem very surprised by it. If it were a dramatic one-off I suspect we might get a little more than the quite mundane in-passing note that Luke gives.
4. I like the way Luke puts it "Paul saw a vision, so we concluded." The group sat around, chatted about it (seemingly perfectly normally) and came to a collective decision of what to do. Note that the vision didn't tell them where to go or who to talk to. It is not an imperative, a command, or highly detailed. They act on it in the best way possible - "its a man from Macedonia, let's go to the chief city of Macedonia and see what happens" - but not with any divine certainties about what will come next. (I wonder if sometimes we need to be more relaxed about some claims of dreams and visions, not claiming too much detailed divine imperative for them, while feeling a freedom to act and explore on the basis of them?)
5. The temptation is to say "if Luke is giving us an example of a normal Acts 2 pattern, why don't we see more like it today?" but without the accompanying commitment to world evangelisation. We can argue the toss either way in theory, but I suspect we only get the right answer if we are actively involved in doing what the Spirit was given to do. Hence hearing many more accounts of supernatural activity from frontier pioneering missions than in comfortable suburbia. C.S. Lewis said "if you want to see trains go and live by the railway. If you don't want to live by the railway, don't argue trains don't exist."
6. Therefore I wonder if this is a case where it is impossible to know whether our exegesis is correct without living out the gospel. Without being active in the cause of world evangelisation.
I want to finish on a wider principle. I don't think there is any certainty in ANY exegesis unless we are living out the gospel. God has a habit of revealing himself to those who don't just think about Him and talk about Him but who do what He says. Sitting in the study trying to answer the question in a purely theoretical, abstract way is probably never what God intended us to do with the Macedonian vision. I suspect we are meant to hear about it, and long for Joel-type visions and dreams as God stirs in us a passion desire to do the work of the gospel in fresh fields.
Thoughts, anyone?
Reader Comments (3)
Hi Marcus,
Really enjoying this series and this post set off a bunch of questions for me!
I've been pondering some of these things you mention specifically in point 4 in relation to this snappy post from TeamPyro.
They argue that they are judging their experience by the Bible rather than the Bible by their experience. (Which frustrates me as an argument for a number of reasons!) How might that kind of charge fit in here with your statement that, "I don't think there is any certainty in ANY exegesis unless we are living out the gospel". Does that suggest experience goes hand in hand with exegesis? What does it mean for one still have priority over the other? One of the Pyro's, for example, had an experience of 'speaking in tongues' but then came to believe that it doesn't happen today and that his experience was false and so stopped. How does that fit with your conclusion? I say that my expectations are informed by Scripture and that therefore I expect this stuff to happen today and I do see it. He says that his expectations are informed by Scripture and that therefore he doesn't expect it to happen today and doesn't see it or disregards it as false when he does see it. What needs to happen here?
I wonder if specifically about point 4 again whether that means we need to have more categories of prophetic activity just (1) inerrant, directive and binding and (2) false (or presumptuous)? Is this an example (along with Agabus' prophecy to Paul about Rome) where what is spoken is informative and broadly but not specifically directive. How might that fit with the nature of the God who is speaking? Would say Paul have been disobeying God if he had not gone to Macedonia?
I find it interesting too that Paul along with the others didn't stop in the first place he got to in Macedonia, the sea port, but went to the big city Philippi which certain appears to be a strategic move. Guidance by the Spirit, through a dream and through the collective wisdom of the team and strategic thinking!
One last thing would be my hesitance to suggest that spiritual gifts are for mission in some way that (as you mentioned in your other post the other day) separates that from disciple-making that brings the believers - as one body - to maturity in Christ (a la Ephesians 4). One example might be the way that those purposes seem to come together both for prophecy to believers and also to unbelievers in the Corinthian church.
Can't wait for the next instalment!
Matt
Hi Matt
I knew it was a controversial one-liner when I wrote it. Interesting debate going on over at TeamPyro as you point out. And one that seems to lack graciousness (Maybe I misread the tone and these guys know each other sufficiently well that the knock-about is good and fun for them). I cordially dislike all discourse that makes blithe assumptions about other people that allow us to paint them in the worst light rather than the best. Granted a lot of responses seem to be to an American situation and Benny Hinn in particular, so it may be that hangs over the debate for the participants. I don't want to be lumped in with Benny Hinn in anyone's evaluation of my theology. Questionable assumptions I note over there include:
1. Continuationists must logically affirm that scripture has been added to after the closure of the canon
2. Arguing for apostles and prophets today NECESSARILY means arguing for scripture writing today
3. Continuationists don't believe scripture to be the final authority on the basis of believing in spiritual gifts
4. "When all the numbers are run, it will be tallied that the distinctive contributions of Charismaticism will have caused far more harm than good" (an unprovable rhetoric if ever there was one!)
But enough on TeamPyro. The relation between Bible, hermeneutics and experience is obviously a BIG subject, with a wide and lengthy literature. Check out Jim Packer's essay "Infallible Scripture and the role of hermeneutics" in "Scripture and Truth" for an interesting read. Packer points out that a frequent argument goes like this:
Biblical authority is based on epistemological certainty; in turn epistemological certainty is based on conceptual clarity; conceptual clarity is based on intellectual apparatus and is refuted by experience which is inherently subjective. The obvious conclusion, if you buy the argument is that any claim to experience is inherently and always a challenge to biblical authority. I think that the TeamPyro guys would probably recognise the argument.
I don't, for all kinds of reasons. One main one being that it assumes an entirely regenerate intellectual apparatus and assumes that correct biblical understanding is primarily a category of the mind rather than a moral category of obedience. (Not, you understand, that I think that obedience and clear thinking are mutually exclusive!)
What I was trying to communicate with my one-liner was just that: knowing the gospel goes hand in hand with living the gospel, or it isn't really knowing. Knowing God is more than epistemology and more than rationale, or how would it be possible to "know the love that surpasses knowledge"?
So what do we do with two incommensurable positions like the one you mention above - both affirming scripture says opposite things.
1. Scripture IS the final authority, experience isn't
2. Affirming that godly people draw different conclusion, both appealing to scripture, must never lead us to say that scripture is plural with regard to truth. There is a right and a wrong here, even if at present we cannot agree on what it is. And you can be wrong and still be godly
3. The categories we bring to the discussion will inevitably shape the conclusions we draw. Hence you are right to say if the only options on prophecy are "inerrant and on a par with scripture" or "utterly false" then we will have an extremely polemic discussion (or fight). And if those are the only two categories I wouldn't blame anyone for fighting
4. Let everybody say we want to align our experience with scripture. Let nobody say they do it perfectly or don't bring their experience (or lack of) to the table with them. And let's never do the "I only argue from the Bible, you only argue form experience" thing with people who really do have the Bible open in front of them. Anyone can win a phyrric victory that way
My view is that prophecy is a remarkably broad category in the New Testament. And therefore it is most helpful to think of a sliding scale of how we should receive anything that claims to be prophetic. We always test and discern from scripture, but we place different weight on testing the word that says "I believe the Lord is leading the church in this or that direction" to the one that says "the Lord really comforted me this morning in my prayer time with a sense of his closeness."
In terms of the tone of conversation I certainly agree. I think some of their style is due to fact they get a lot of traffic and they feel like they are always having to start again from the beginning with each new commenter whereas they are would like to move the conversation on. Being part of a student church with such a large yearly turnover I can understand why their daily turnover might be frustrating. Still, I don't think that means we shouldn't seek to be patient and gracious - which certainly applies to me as much as anyone else!
On your other points, lot's of great stuff to think about there. Thanks as ever for the fullness of your responses!
Matt