Unlocking the Bible

5. THE CHURCH
It is surprising to discover that even the word ‘church’ could be misunderstood, were it not for Luke’s record in Acts. In the Gospels only Matthew mentions the word at all, and his two references are not descriptive of what a church should be like. The Epistles are generally addressed to churches and give us hints as to what they were, but it is only in Acts that we learn what a church actually was, including how it was planted, how the apostles appointed elders and what the relationship was between the apostles and the churches they founded.
6. CONVERSION
Acts is crucial to us also because we learn so much about the proper way in which people were born again. The Gospels record events before the coming of the Holy Spirit and the Epistles are written to people who are already established in their faith. Neither provides an appropriate model of how people come to faith in Jesus in the Church age. So we go to Acts to see how the apostles brought people into the kingdom, and we read of the normal pattern of repentance, faith, baptism in water and baptism in Spirit. (For further explanation of this process, see my book The Normal Christian Birth, published by Hodder and Stoughton.)
A model for today
Acts is therefore an important source of information and explanation – but it is clearly much more than that too. Many would see it as a model for church life everywhere, and pine for the day when modern churches will exhibit the same qualities Luke describes. This seems a reasonable assumption. After all, it is the only Church history we have in Scripture. Presumably the Holy Spirit wanted it included so that we would know what God intends for his people.

Links
Acts is a vital link between the Gospels and the Epistles. Imagine the New Testament without it. Many things would be very difficult to understand. People and ideas are mentioned in the Epistles without explanation. Some key people and places cannot be understood without this book.
1. PAUL
Most of the letters in the New Testament are written by Paul, but who was Paul? He was not one of the twelve apostles, so he is not mentioned in the Gospels. Without the book of Acts we would know very little about him or his ministry, or how he came to be writing to churches and individuals and why these letters are important.
2. BAPTISM IN WATER
The baptism of believers is another matter with an important link in Acts. Only in Acts is it described as being in water. So while Paul frequently refers to baptism in his letters – for example, ‘Don’t you know that when you were baptized you were baptized into his death?’ – he never actually links the word ‘baptized’ with the word ‘water’. This has led some scholars to argue that Paul did not teach water baptism and that ‘baptism into Christ’ means something purely spiritual. But in Acts you find that Paul was himself baptized and had his converts baptized. So we know that when he talks about ‘baptism’ in his letters he is talking about baptism in water.
3. BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT
The phrase ‘baptized in Holy Spirit’ occurs in all four Gospels, but none of them tells you what it actually means, or what happens when somebody is so baptized. If you looked for a meaning in the Epistles you would also be disappointed. Paul uses the phrase in 1 Corinthians – ‘For we were all baptized in one Spirit into one body’ – but he does not say what that means in practice. It is only the book of Acts which explains what it really means to be baptized in Holy Spirit, for only there is the event actually described.
4. THE LAW OF MOSES
Acts also helps us when we consider our approach to the law of Moses today. How do we know that we Christians are not bound by it? The law of Moses had 613 different requirements, so we need to be clear whether we are free from these laws or not. How do we know whether or not these are still binding? The answer comes as we read about the great argument concerning circumcision which reached a climax in Acts 15, when it was settled once and for all that Christians are free from the law of Moses, though still bound by the law of Christ.

PETER IN CAESAREA
The expansion of the gospel faced a significant stumbling block: the Jewish food laws forbade Jews to eat with Gentiles. Luke therefore includes an account of how God taught Peter that eating ‘non-kosher’ food was permissible and sent him to a Gentile home to preach the gospel.
Acts 10 is a pivotal chapter, showing Peter’s astonishment that the Holy Spirit came upon non-Jews exactly as he had come upon Jews elsewhere. So crucial was this that Peter had to explain what happened to the apostles in Jerusalem in order that they might be apprised of the way in which God was at work.
THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL
Peter’s conversation with the Jerusalem believers is a forerunner to the meeting of the Jerusalem Council in Chapter 15. Paul was sharing the way in which his ministry among the Gentiles had caused the Church to grow. But he was conscious of the danger of a rift developing between the Jewish church and this influx of Gentiles into the kingdom. They had, of course, little or no understanding of the Jewish heritage. The subsequent letter sent to the Gentile churches ensured that the Gentile church could grow freely with the encouragement of the ‘mother’ church in Jerusalem.
COHERENT PURPOSE
It is clear that Luke has selected particular events in order to show Theophilus not just the fact of the Church’s expansion but also how it took place. These are not just haphazard stories. They depict how the Christian faith came to spread across the Roman world and how it remained united despite the cultural pressures it faced. Luke does not tell us of many individual conversions, nor what became of the majority of the apostles, but instead picks out particular events which serve his purpose.
Acts on an existential level
Having looked at the human or historical aspects of Acts, we now need to focus on why the divine editor wanted us to have this book. We must not leave our study in the past, but must also seek to hear its message for today. So we move from the historical significance to the existential meaning of the book, asking what it has to say to us about God now.

STEPHEN’S MARTYRDOM
Stephen was preaching when he was seized and brought before the religious rulers, accused of spreading anti-Jewish propaganda. We know very little about him from Acts, yet his final sermon is included as one of the longest chapters in the whole book (Chapter 7). His words underline Luke’s purpose of describing how Christianity changed from being a Jewish, national religion to being a Gentile, international faith.
To the horror of his accusers, Stephen outlines before the Jewish leaders how much of God’s activity took place outside their land, before there was a temple. The covenant with Abraham, the rescue from Egypt and the giving of the law were all outside the Promised Land. Their accusations that he was speaking against this holy place and the law were false, therefore, for God’s Word and presence transcend national boundaries.
This speech is a theological explanation and justification for the spread of the message to the Gentiles, and within the unfolding drama of Acts it shows how the death of Stephen and subsequent persecution thrust believers out from Jerusalem into Samaria and up as far as Antioch, Luke’s birthplace.
PHILIP IN SAMARIA
Luke then records how Philip, another of those seven deacons, went to Samaria and saw many respond to his preaching. There was a great deal of antipathy between Jews and Samaritans and the disciples themselves had not been altogether generous. The last time John was in Samaria with Jesus, he and his brother James asked if they could pray that God would send fire from heaven to burn all the Samaritans up. Now many Samaritans came to faith, and later on Peter and John arrived to pray that the Samaritans would be baptized in the Holy Spirit, asking for fire from heaven for a rather different reason!
Philip was then transported to preach to an Ethiopian eunuch on his way home from Jerusalem. It would seem a curious incident to include, were it not for Luke’s purpose of showing how the gospel spread. This is how the gospel came to Ethiopia, brought by that eunuch, the first African convert.
THE CONVERSION OF SAUL
Saul’s conversion is also a pivotal moment in the whole narrative (Chapter 9). Indeed, this testimony is recorded three times, so that Theophilus might know the evidence given to the other adjudicators. Saul was later known as Paul, and we learn how he was commissioned to serve Christ and how he was united with the Jerusalem believers so that they could work to an agreed strategy. Once Barnabas and Paul have been sent out from the church at Antioch, the focus of the book moves from Peter to Paul.

Introduction
When we study any book of the Bible we need to engage with it at two levels. First, we examine the human level, considering who was writing and why, aware that each book is rooted in a particular situation with a particular audience in mind. At this level we look at the historical situation, seeking to make the Word of God real in its original context.
Second, we consider the book at the divine level, asking why the Holy Spirit intended the book for us and seeking to determine the way in which it is relevant to us today.
We might term these two levels the historical and the existential. The historical level asks why was it written, what was the human reason behind it? The existential level asks why is it in our Bible and why does God want us to know about this? This two-fold approach will prove especially helpful as we look at the book of Acts.
Acts on a historical level
Who wrote it and why?
THE AUTHOR
The author was Luke, a doctor by profession from Antioch, Syria, and the only Gentile writer in the Bible. He was a companion of Paul, often travelling with him, and had a keen interest in researching the events surrounding the life of Jesus and the growth of the Church. It was probably in Caesarea and Rome that he wrote Luke and Acts respectively (Moral Choice for more details on Luke as the author of these two books).
DEFENCE BRIEF
We have seen already that Acts is the second volume of a two-volume work written by Luke, to prepare Paul’s defence as he awaited trial in Rome (The Fall). Acts commences by addressing the same man who is referred to at the beginning of Luke’s Gospel as the ‘most excellent’ Theophilus, a title suggesting a lawyer or judge and used elsewhere in Acts of Felix and Festus, both governors who met with Paul. Luke was doubtless aware that his ‘brief’ might be more widely circulated as people in Rome asked questions about the faith for which Paul stood trial.
Had this been a history of Paul’s life, then at the very least Luke would have included the outcome of his trial, if not details of how he died. If this was a history of the Church we would have expected far more details about the church in Rome. But it was not Luke’s intention to provide full biographical details about Paul, nor to cover Church history for its own sake, but to give enough information for Theophilus to understand how the Christian faith had developed and why the apostle Paul was now unjustly accused. Hence the readers of Acts are left at the end with the situation which prevailed when Luke had completed the brief for Theophilus.

The ‘futurist’ is even more bizarre, believing that the seven churches will be re-established in the very same cities of Asia just before Jesus returns, based on the mistaken assumption that ‘I will come’ (2:5, 16; 3:4) refers to the Second Advent. Actually, these churches have long since disappeared, their ‘lampstands removed’.
The ‘idealist’ usually shares the ‘preterist’ view of this section, but adds the belief that the seven historical churches represent the whole Church in space. Ephesus represents the orthodox but loveless fellowships, Smyrna the suffering, Pergamum the enduring, Thyatira the corrupt, Sardis the dead, Philadelphia the feeble but evangelistic, Laodicea the lukewarm.
Whether they cover the entire range of church character between them is debatable. But the comfort and challenge of their example can be applied anywhere and any time.
So the preterist with a dash of idealist seems the right mixture for the first section.

Third, parts of each of the four methods can help understanding. Some elements from all four are compatible and can be used in conjunction with each other, though it must be added that other elements are quite incompatible and cannot be combined.
Fourth, the emphasis may change in different sections of the book. At each stage, the most appropriate method or methods of interpretation must be chosen and used. In the remainder of this section we shall illustrate this in practical terms by considering the three major divisions of the book:
THE BEGINNING (CHAPTERS 1–3)
This section is not very controversial, so is more frequently and confidently expounded than the rest (see, for example, What Christ thinks of the Church by John Stott, Lutterworth Press, 1958). Most are comfortable with the traditional interpretation (though uncomfortable with the application!). The problem with this section is that we do understand it, only too well. There are a few problems with details (the angels) and symbols (white stones and hidden manna). But the letters to the seven churches in Asia are not unlike other New Testament epistles. So which ‘school’ is appropriate?
The ‘preterist’ is surely right in directing our attention to the first century. Any true exegesis must begin with what this meant to them then. But need it end there?
The ‘historicist’ believes that the seven churches represent the whole church in time, seven consecutive epochs in church history. Ephesus covers the early church, Smyrna the Roman persecutions, Pergamum the time of Constantine, Thyatira the Middle Ages, Sardis the Reformation, Philadelphia the worldwide missionary movement and Laodicea the twentieth century. But the parallels are forced (Western churches may look ‘Laodicean’, but the Third-World ones are anything but!). This scheme simply doesn’t fit.

Some are paralleled elsewhere in scripture. In the Old Testament may be found the tree of life, the rainbow, the morning star, the rod of iron, horsemen, tyrannical regimes pictured as wild ‘beasts’. It may safely be assumed that these emblems have retained their original meaning.
Some are obscure, but very few. One example is the ‘white stone’, for which scholars have offered an amazing number of interpretations. A declaration of innocence? A sign of approval? A badge of excellence? Maybe we won’t know what it signifies until we receive one!
Numbers are also used as symbols. There are many ‘sevens’ in Revelation – stars, lampstands, lamps, seals, trumpets, bowls. It is the ‘round’ number of the Bible, the complete, the perfect figure. ‘Twelve’ is associated with the old people of God (their tribes) and the new (their apostles); ‘twenty-four’ brings them together. ‘One thousand’ is the largest number. ‘Twelve thousand’ from each tribe of Israel brings the total to ‘one hundred and forty-four thousand’.
‘666’ is the one that captures attention. It is made up of sixes, a figure which always points to the human failure to reach the seven of ‘complete perfection’. It is used here as a clue to the identity of the last world dictator before Jesus reigns for a thousand years (in Latin, a millennium). Is it significant that ‘666’ is the total of all the Roman numerals (I=1 + V=5 + X=10 + L=50 +C=100 + D=500) except one (M=1000)? But all attempts to name him from this figure will fail until his appearing makes it perfectly clear.
There is so much in Revelation that is quite clear that we can cope with a few obscurities now, believing that they will be clarified by future events when the information is really needed. Meanwhile, we can thank God that he has told us so much.
Of course, he speaks through human voices, through the mouths of his ‘prophets’. John realized that the message he delivered was not his. He calls his writing ‘this prophecy’ (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). He is therefore a prophet as well as an apostle. This is the only ‘prophetic’ book in the New Testament.
Prophecy is both ‘forthtelling’ (a word of God about the present) and ‘foretelling’ (a word of God about the future). Revelation is both, the greater part being predictions of events yet to happen.
When will they be fulfilled? Have they happened already? Are they happening right now? Or have they still to happen? We must now consider the various answers being given to these questions.

In the context of Scripture, it is the unveiling of that which is hidden from man, but is known to God. There are some things which man cannot know unless God chooses to inform him. In particular, he cannot know what is happening in heaven and he cannot know what will happen in the future. His recording and interpreting of events is therefore strictly limited in both time and space. It can only be, at best, a partial account of the flow of history.
When God writes history, he gives a total picture, not least because he orders as well as observes the events. ‘History is his story.’ He ‘makes known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come’ (Isaiah 46:10). Past, present and future are interrelated in him.
So are heaven and earth. There is an interaction between what goes on up there and what goes on down here. One of the disturbing features in Revelation is the constant shift of scene from earth to heaven and back again. That is because of the connection between events above and below (e.g. war in heaven leads to war on earth; 12:7; 13:7).
‘Apocalyptic’ is history written from God’s point of view. It gives the total picture. It enlarges our understanding of world events by seeing them in the light of what is above and beyond our limited perception. This gives us both insight and foresight, enlarging our comprehension of what is going on around us, far beyond that of the normal historian.
Patterns and purposes emerge to which he is blind. History is not just a haphazard accumulation of happenings. Coincidence gives way to providence. History is going somewhere.
Time is eternally significant. Time and eternity are interrelated. God is not outside time, as Greek philosophy imagined. He is inside time; or rather, time is inside God. He is the God who was, is and is to come. Even God himself cannot change the past, once it has happened! The death and resurrection of Jesus can never be changed or cancelled.
God is working out his plans and purposes within time (the classic book on this is Christ and Time by Oscar Cullmann, SCM Press, 1950). He is the Lord of history. But it is his pattern, which can only be discerned when he has revealed the missing pieces of the jigsaw. Things hidden from human observation and which God reveals are called ‘mysteries’ in the New Testament.
The direction of events in the past and present becomes apparent in the light of the future. The shape of history cannot be seen in the short term, only in the long term. For time is relative as well as real to God. ‘A thousand years are like a day’ to him (Psalm 90:4, quoted in 2 Peter 3:8). His amazing patience with us makes him appear ‘slow’ to us (2 Peter 3:9).
The Bible contains a ‘philosophy of history’ quite different from those which man’s unaided reason has adopted. The contrast is clear when we compare it with the four most commonly held ideas:

Scholars have noted many differences between Revelation and the other writings of the apostle John (one Gospel and three Epistles). The style, grammar and vocabulary are so unusual for him that they have concluded that it must come from another ‘John’. They have actually found a somewhat vague reference to an obscure elder of that name in Ephesus to fit the bill. But the man who wrote Revelation simply introduces himself as ‘I, John’ (1:9), which indicates that he was well and widely known.
There is a simpler explanation for the contrast, even apart from the obvious difference of subject. He never intended to write Revelation. He never even thought about it. It came to him as a totally unexpected ‘revelation’ in verbal annd visual form. As he ‘heard’ and ‘saw’ this astonishing series of voices and visions, he was repeatedly told to ‘write’ it all down (1:11, 19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5). The reiterated command suggests that he became so absorbed in what was happening to him that he forgot to record it from time to time.
This explains the ‘inferior Greek’, compared to his normal fluency. It was written hurriedly in very distracting circumstances. Imagine watching a film and being told to ‘get it all down on paper’, while it was being shown. College students will understand the ‘scrappy’ style by looking at their lecture notes. Why, then, did John not write it up afterwards from his scribbled précis, so that its permanent form might be rather more polished? He was hardly likely to when the last dictated words contained a curse on anyone who tampered with what he had written!
All this means that John was not the author of Revelation. He was merely the ‘amanuensis’ who took it down. So who was the ‘author’? The message was often communicated to him by angels. But it was also what the Spirit was saying to the churches; and it was the revelation of Jesus Christ. But it was given to Jesus by God. So a complex chain of communication was involved – God, Jesus, Spirit, angels, John. More than once, poor John was confused about who should get the glory for what he was experiencing (19:10; 22:8–9). Only the first two links in the chain are worshipped in this book.
More directly than any other book in the New Testament, this deserves the name of ‘Revelation’. The Greek word so translated in the first sentence is apokalypsis, from which came the noun ‘Apocalypse’ and the adjective ‘apocalyptic’, which is now more widely used of other literature similar in style and content. The root word means ‘unveiling’.
It is the pulling back of a curtain to reveal what has been hidden (as in the unveiling of a picture or plaque).