Excellent!! HT iMonk
Who Are the Laodiceans ; Part 3
September 12, 2009 By Leave a Comment
Having taken a look at the historical Laodiceans and the strong words that Jesus had for them in Revelation 3:14-19 in my last two posts, I now want to explore how these words apply to Christians in today’s world.
I’ll start out with what I learned during my youth in the Worldwide Church of God, progress through my later years in various Baptist and Charismatic churches and finish with what I think now.
For those unfamiliar with Armstrongism (the teachings of Herbert Armstrong and the some of the splinter groups of the former Worldwide Church of God), a little history will be required. Herbert Armstrong taught that the Seven Churches in Revelation were symbolic of seven Church Ages starting from the Apostolic Age of the 1st Century and stretching through to Christ’s second coming which he saw as eminent. He believed that the then Worldwide Church of God ( referred to as the WCOG)) was representative of the Philadelphia Era and that after his version of the “rapture” (don’t even ask) occurred, that those left behind were going to be the Laodicean Era. He taught that there were elements of both of these Eras present in the WCOG and repeatedly warned that the “lukewarm” members in our midst were going to get left behind to endure the Great Tribulation while the Philadelphians were whisked away.
Now Armstrong’s ideas were not original. The idea of seven church ages began as an offshoot of theological system known as Dispensationalism sometime during the mid 1800′s. E.W. Bullinger (1837-1913) appears to be one of the first protestant theologians to propose the Seven Church Age Theory and C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) popularized Dispensationalism with his Scofield Study Bible. Scofield included notes on the Seven Church Eras in his notes in his Study Bible. One thing that I found of interest when I began to study dispensationalism is that most dispensational theologians believe that the Philadelphia Era ended around the turn of the 20th Century and that we’ve been living in the Laodicean era since then. Here is a handy little chart showing the classic dispensational view of the Seven Church Eras.
I became familiar with this dispensational view when I began to attend Baptist and Charismatic churches while I was in my twenties. Most Baptist and Charismatic seminaries teach dispensationalism and many of the authors of the last thirty or forty years such as Hal Lindsey (Late Great Planet Earth) and Tim Lahaye (Left Behind series) are also dispensationalists. This view made sense to me at the time, with the exception of a pre-trib rapture, which I have never viewed as biblical. The more I study dispensationalism however, the more problems I find with it.
So, what do I think? Well, to begin with, I pretty well dismissed Armstrong’s ideas about these church eras long ago. Armstrong’s eschatology was a hodgepodge of ideas from many other theologians, many of whom were on the outer fringe themselves. It was a kind of mix-and-match eschatology that once closely examined, held no scriptural validity.
The dispensationalism that Armstrong borrowed from is very shaky itself. I blogged about dispensationalism a couple of months ago, and you can read what I think about dispensationalism here. As to the Seven Church Eras portion of dispensationalism, there is nowhere in the first three chapters of Revelation that the messages to the seven churches in Asia are indicated to be prophetic in nature, and I tend to believe that these messages were primarily to the seven churches themselves and that the characteristics of these churches can be found within any church of any age.
Many bible scholars have dismissed this idea of the seven church ages as well. I like what the well-known theologian and bible scholar Adam Clarke had to say about this:
“I do not perceive any metaphorical or allegorical meaning in the epistles to these Churches. I consider the Churches as real; and that their spiritual state is here really and literally pointed out; and that they have no reference to the state of the Church of Christ in all ages of the world, as has been imagined; and that notion of what has been termed the Ephesian state, the Smyrnian state, the Pergamenian state, the Thyatirian state, etc., etc., is unfounded, absurd, and dangerous; and such expositions should not be entertained by any who wish to arrive at a sober and rational knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Thomas Tegg, 1837] P.2028)
One more note on Armstrongism and Dispensationalism as concerned with the Seven Church Age Theory. Both of these theologies insist on a strict literal interpretation of the Bible, except when it is clearly indicated that the scripture is meant to be taken allegorically or prophetically. If you read through these first three chapters of Revelation, you will find no place that it is indicated that these epistles to the seven churches in Asia are meant to be taken in any other way than at face value. These two theologies break their own rules when interpreting these messages to the Churches to be prophetic in nature.
With regards to the message to the Laodiceans in particular, I tend to think that this message was meant in particular to the Laodiceans themselves, but also generally as a warning to all Christians of all times.
Could we currently be in the Laodicean era of the Church Ages? Sure, why not, although I tend to think not. But at the end of the day what does it matter to the sincere Christian who is following Jesus with all of his/her heart? If you are worried about becoming a spiritual Laodicean, you probably don’t have anything to worry about. If you could care less, and are content just cruising along making it to the church of your choice once in a while to keep your “fire insurance policy” active, then you may be on dangerous ground.
While I still find bible prophecy interesting, I no longer put a great deal of emphasis on it. Putting Christ first in my life is now my number one priority. Jesus Christ will return one day, and He will then separate the wheat from the tares, but as long as I concentrate on serving Him every day with all of my actions, I am no longer quite so concerned as to what will be happening immediately before He returns, just that I am ready for Him when He does come. I do keep my eyes open with regards to world events, but my primary concern is to simply serve my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
So, who are the Laodiceans? To tell the truth, as far as I am concerned they probably ceased to exist about 1500 years ago with their last big earthquake. Are there spiritual Laodiceans today. You betcha. There are some in every church across America right now. Who are they? Only God knows, and it’s apparent that He is not too fond of them.
I know that I’m not one, and that is the most important thing to me personally. As long as a person is sincerely putting Christ first in their lives, becoming a Laodicean should be the last of their worries.
Who Are the Laodiceans ; Part 2
September 12, 2009 By Leave a Comment
Before I go into what I think about who the current Laodiceans may or may not be, I want to add one note about some further thoughts about what is “hot”, “cold” and “lukewarm” as it’s found in Revelation 3: 14-19. I was discussing my last blog entry with a good long-time friend of mine who had never before heard of this interpretation of what Jesus was speaking about in this message to the Laodiceans. He expressed a little reservation about interpreting “cold” as being good quality and suggested that I do a word study on this word as used in the New Testament. So I did.
The word “cold” in verses 15 and 16 is the Greek word psychros (Strong’s 5593) and is used only here and in Matthew 10:42 ; “And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall in no means lose his reward.” It is obvious that cold (psychros) used here is as a good thing, a refreshing thing.
The other New Testament uses for the word cold are psycho (Strong’s 5594) , which is used only in Matthew 24:12 ; And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold”, and psychos ( Strong’s 5592). The latter is found in John 18:18, Acts 28:2 and in 2 Corinthians 11:27 and in all three places is simply speaking of being cold as a reference to the temperature outside.
Now I’m not a theologian, nor have I attended a seminary. For that matter, my knowledge of Greek is limited to what I read in a lexicon. I am simply a lay Bible student with a desire to know Jesus better. With all of that said, I find it significant that the one other use in the New Testament of this particular Greek word for cold is in reference to it being an admirable thing….a refreshing thing.
I think that everyone would agree that “lukewarm” is bad, and that “hot” is good as is referenced in Revelation 3:15-16. I feel even further convinced that “cold” is also a good quality, and is not referencing the state of an unbeliever. 2 Peter 3:9 says “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” I don’t believe that Jesus was saying that He would prefer us to be an unbeliever rather than being “lukewarm”, but that He wants all of us to use our spiritual gifts whether they be hot or cold and not be complacent.
I’ll continue with what will now be Part 3 in day or so and address the how I think these scriptures do or do not apply to Christianity in our times.
Who are the Laodiceans? Part 1
September 10, 2009 By Leave a Comment
Among one of the more predominant teachings that I remember growing up with was the repeated warnings to our church congregations about becoming the Laodicean church. We were constantly reminded how the Laodiceans were going to get “spewed out” of Jesus’ mouth and “left behind” at the beginning of the Great Tribulation. It was always a fearful thing to hear, and I surely didn’t want to be a Laodicean.
So who were, and more importantly, who is now considered a Laodicean?
The Church in Laodicea that Jesus was addressing in the third chapter of Revelation was among the wealthiest cities in Asia. The city sat at a crossroads in the Lycus valley between two major trade routes and had become wealthy through banking and commerce. The Laodiceans also produced a highly prized black wool and had a medical school. Laodicea also produced a highly sought after eye salve. Verse 17 bears out the affluence of the Laodiceans; “I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need for nothing.” The Laodiceans were so proud of their self-reliance that when a major earthquake nearly leveled the city in 60 AD, they refused Romes assistance (Tacitus, Annals 14:27)
However the one thing that they did lack was a source of fresh drinking water. Nearby Hieropolis and Collosae both had springs for drinking water, but Laodicea had to rely on a large system of aqueducts and waterworks to get their water piped in from the hot springs six miles away in Hieropolis. By the time it arrived in Laodicea, it was lukewarm and had to be reheated for use in their baths and fountains. It should be noted that this water was not used for drinking, except for as an emetic to cause vomiting or as a laxative. Drinking water had to be transported from the Lycus river which was two miles away. Here is a map of Laodicea and the surrounding cities.
Picture of a stone calcified aqueduct at Laodicean ruins
For many years, I was under the impression that the letter to the Laodiceans meant that Jesus would rather us be cold than lukewarm, and thought that meant that He would rather us not try to serve Him at all than to make a halfhearted or “lukewarm” attempt at following Him. “I know your works, that you are neither cold or hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot.”
Apparently though, cold and hot are both good characteristics that Jesus was wanting for the Laodiceans to have. Cold would indicate spiritually refreshing and energizing like fresh, cool spring water. Hot would indicate spiritually soothing or healing such as in the hot water from the mineral springs. Lukewarm is good for nothing. The Laodiceans would easily be able to relate to Jesus’ words about them being lukewarm when they compared it to the lukewarm water arriving through their pipes that no one wanted to drink from.
One thing of interest that I found when researching this topic was that the word used for “spew” in verse 16 is the greek word emeo (strongs 1692). This word actually means “to vomit” which is what the lukewarm emetic water coming from the pipes in Laodicea would make you do. This is the only place that this word is used in the New Testament and indicates how strongly our Lord felt about the Laodicean condition.
So why did Jesus use such a strong word of admonition to the Laodiceans. Lukewarm religion is nauseating to God. The Laodiceans were full of smug self-reliance. They were affluent and didn’t need anybodies help. In fact when assistance was offered, like it was offered during their earthquake in 60 AD, they didn’t want Rome’s charity. It seems that they didn’t want Jesus’ charity either. And although they felt that they had everything that they needed, they were in fact “wretched, pitiable, poor blind, and naked.”
We all have different spiritual gifts and God expects for us to use them, whether they be hot or cold. But to have no passion or zeal for God and to sit back in proud self reliance or indifference makes God sick.
I plan on following up this post with a part 2, discussing how the message to the Laodiceans may or may not be interpreted to apply to our current Christian Churches or perhaps to individuals or elements within the Churches. I will also discuss the ideas put forth about there being various Church Ages including the Laodicean Age.
Premillenial Dispensationalism and the Rapture
August 15, 2009 By Leave a Comment
Our Senior Pastor just finished a four week series on the Revelation of John, so I got my first real look at the Methodists view on eschatology. Since joining the Methodist Church, I had never really studied their views of end-time prophecy nor had I read anything by Wesley on it. Amazingly enough, for me anyway, Wesleyanism really doesn’t address eschatology at all other than the fact that this age will eventually come an end and there will be a Resurrection and Final Judgement. Wesley held a Post-Millennial viewpoint and believed that the Methodist revival was going to usher in the millennium.
Now, growing up with Herbert Armstrong, seemingly the only thing ever preached was his twisted version of Dispensationalist Anglo-Israelism as well as his version of how The Church (or at least 144,000 of them) was going to get “raptured” to a “place of safety”. After leaving that church some 25 years ago and refuting for myself Armstrongism, and then attending various Baptist and Charismatic churches and hearing their versions of end-times prophecy and then studying the Bible to see if their views were correct, I concluded that the pre-tribulation rapture theory simply wasn’t biblical, but I still held on to the basic tenants of premillinial dispensationism without ever considering postmillenialism or amillenialism. I’m no longer quite so sure that these two views don’t deserve a better look.
I’ve read quite a bit on the history of dispensationalism over the last couple of months and watched an excellent documentary on it http://www.lategreatplanetchurch.com/.
I’m definitely leaning towards throwing dispensationalism completely out of the door, but then what do I have left? Premillenial? On what grounds? Postmillenial or amillinial? Again, on what grounds?
I have realized since coming to know Jesus personally that Christian living is much more important than when the earth is going to come to an end, and have read some interesting articles and blogs reflecting what the dangers of an undue obsession with end-times prophecy and specifically focusing on a rapture can be. Here are just a couple.
Portion of a post on Blackstone Presbyterian Church forum from Adam Craig:
http://www.blackstonepresby.org/viewtopic.php?t=137
“If I am convinced that one day I will joyfully slip away to Heaven and escape the worst that the world can offer, then what good is an attempt to struggle against hunger, poverty, crime, and other horrors of the world if its ultimate fate has already been sealed and I know that that fate will take place while I’m sitting back in Heaven “feasting on the manna from a bountiful supply” and “drinking from the fountain that never shall run dry” away from it all? In essence, a belief in a rapture leads one to believe, whether subconsciously or consciously, that God’s troop deployment plans call for retreat and evacuation of his own troops rather than engagement.
The concept of a rapture can also be misleading in another way:
It can harvest an unbiblical view of suffering. The teaching of the rapture ultimately implies that God wants to shield Christians completely from injuries that would be inflicted on them by those who oppose them for taking a stand with God. However, as I mentioned in an earlier post on this site, the sufferings of Christians are not uncommon. In fact, suffering is a part of the daily lives of most true Christians. We are constantly harassed for our beliefs, we are not allowed to express our beliefs publicly, &c. And just think, it was even worse back in the days of early Christians, back when one would be thrown in the Roman Colisseum with several hungry lions, all of which were looking to take a part of one’s mortal remains home for supper. No, Christians are not supposed to be free from suffering. Quite the contrary.
Suffering can be seen as a channel for cleansing. Often we suffer as a result of our sin. Often we suffer because God is testing our faith. Often Satan and Satan’s servants tempt and test us even as they did Christ himself. “
Here is another really good quote:
“I am persuaded that the powers of darkness have pulled off an amazing coup. While the American Church is undoubtedly the wealthiest church ever in education, discretionary time, and money, a major segment of that church has been lured into believing it cannot make a difference for world peace or social justice. Ironically, in this deterministic view of the future, not only can’t the church make a difference, neither can God. This eschatology of despair unwittingly seems to lock God outside of history, characterizing God as an important absentee landlord who is unable to effect any real change in the present world. All God gets to do is bring down the final curtain at the end of history.” ——- Tom Sine, in *Sojourners* magazine, regarding the kinds of end-times theories circulating in the Fundamentalist and Pentecostalist circles.”
Now, where do I stand? Well, I’m no longer quite so sure. While the postmillinial viewpoint is definitely attractive, I have a hard time reconciling it with the current decline in morality and apparent increase in evil that I see in this world. However, I know that there have been historic times that seemed as dark if not darker than these. As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, “Nothing is new under the sun.” I like the idea of Jesus returning in full might sometime in the very near future (i.e. my lifetime) and wiping out sin, sorrow and pain, but just how realistic is that?
I would tend to think some sort of the premillinial view of eschatology is the most likely scenario given all that I have read and from what I see in todays world, although I still can’t reconcile a pretribulation rapture in any way from the way I read my Bible. The biggest concern that I guess I have is that if the pre-wrath or post-trib view is correct, there are going to be a whole lot of really surprised Christians when the whole world starts to go south and the Antichrist (if he even exists) shows up. I do take some comfort in Matthew 24:24 where our Lord tells us that the elect won’t be able to be decieved, but many Christians really won’t be near as spiritually ready as they could be by being ready to endure Great Tribulation if necessary. As I tell my rapture-ready friends, “I sure hope that you’re right about this rapture business, but if not, I’ll try really hard not to say ‘I told you so’ when we’re fighting for our lives.” Of course, if either the preterist postmillenial or amillinial view turns out to be correct then we have nothing to worry about, right?
For the time being, I suppose that I’ll do the only right thing, which is to try and live every day as if Christ is returning Today. As I still find eschatology to be very interesting I’ll continue reading what I can when I see something of relevance on the subject, but not try and put undue emphasis on it to the point that I miss the point of Christian living each and every day.
Conversations Along The Road