That being said, I wanted to expound on one aspect of my previous post. I talked about rekindling the fire, and in the post I talked a little about a verse from Revelation 3 v 16. A friend of mine pointed out that something I wrote didn't sit well with them in regards to this verse, so they did some research of their own, which I think is brilliant - we should definitely test what we see and hear and make sure it all aligns to the Word of God. I wholeheartedly implore people not to just take anyone's word for something, always check things out with God's Word.
An article on a web page was brought to my attention that also discussed this same verse and it made some really good points but it takes a completely different view on what the verse means. I'll post the page at the end so you can read it in full. I'll admit, at first read-through it made me wonder whether I have given this passage enough study of my own to really comment on it. Do I really understand it? Have I misinterpreted the Word of God? Have I misrepresented God's Word? This has bothered me immensely because there's a warning in Revelation - it's a special book that has its own little caveats of blessing to those who read it, and conversely it has its own little warning too. In Rev 22 v 19 it says "and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book"
Eek, I definitely want to make sure that what I'm writing about God's Word is accurate, and I don't want to be taking away anything from its true meaning. Now I don't profess to understand a lot of Revelation. I'm fascinated with it though, and I've done some study on it, so for myself I want to ensure I'm being as true to it as I can. I apologise in advance as this is a really long post. I have poured my heart into this matter the last few days, and given much prayer and study to this little scripture, because I take God's Word so seriously. God's Word is worth the time and the effort to me. God even gave me a very rare, completely unexpected, child-free morning to dedicate to prayer and devotion. It is important to me and I wanted to be sure in my understanding, so it was important to God too. He's truly amazing.
So here goes. If you read to the end, well done! You've got stamina! :)
First thing I do when I don't understand the bible is ask the Author.
What are you saying Lord? Have I misunderstood this verse? This was my immediate cry when I read the article and then thought about how it differed to my own understanding. In agony of heart, I was pained that I may have mis-represented Jesus because my sole desire is to please Him. So, I want to disregard my own suppositions, and indeed anyone else's interpretation of it, I just want to hear from Him Who wrote it, and Revelation is written by Jesus Himself.
So as a recap, this is Jesus speaking to the Laodicean church, and the verse is :
I know your [record of] works and what you are doing; you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth
The article's standpoint is that it is because of their works or deeds the Laodicean church are deemed lukewarm. We are not saved by deeds or works, we are saved by grace, therefore the being spewed out of His mouth does not relate to losing one's salvation (which I agree with, but personally am not convinced it means we will lose our salvation. I'll briefly come back to this later). It purports that a state of not being hot or cold, or rather being lukewarm, does not in fact relate to a spiritual matter of the heart or our zeal for God or being "superficial Christians". Moreover, it suggests that lukewarmness, is actually mixing law and grace.
I'm not writing this to tear down another brother or sister in Christ, the article makes some really good points, and I completely respect that we all have different opinions. What I want to do is offer a different perspective of the points raised in the article based on the way I approach bible study and how I understand the text. I am laying out perspectives based on my study here. This doesn't mean I am right, they're just my take on it after my own study. I have been guilty in the past of inserting my own understanding and assumptions into passages and I've later realised I've been way off the mark in some areas of understanding and interpretation. It's so easily done, so I want to approach a few of the points raised and strip away as much of the human assumption as possible, and stick to the scriptures and the context. We must look at the bible in context to understand it more fully.
I want to stress that if I had read the verse in isolation, and then read the said article, I would probably agree with the points raised in the article, perhaps not even giving it a second thought. It is only because I have recently studied Revelation myself, that I have felt that the points, although on the whole are biblically sound, and make a lot of common sense, in my opinion they don't quite line up with what I understand from the context of Revelation 1-3. It highlights for me how important it is to check everything up through the lens of God's Word. People make mistakes. I make mistakes. We're not always right, but thank God, He never changes and His Word is true.
That being said, I would earnestly encourage you to later read the article for yourself, then read the first 3 chapters of Revelation, then do your own research and study and come to your own conclusions. I simply want to offer my interpretation from my own studying. I feel responsible for ensuring that what I say and write is as biblically correct as possible, so for my own sake, I have studied further. I am referring to this article in this post simply as it has been brought to my attention and it is the thing that made me re-examine my own understanding and re-check what the bible says.
That being said, I would earnestly encourage you to later read the article for yourself, then read the first 3 chapters of Revelation, then do your own research and study and come to your own conclusions. I simply want to offer my interpretation from my own studying. I feel responsible for ensuring that what I say and write is as biblically correct as possible, so for my own sake, I have studied further. I am referring to this article in this post simply as it has been brought to my attention and it is the thing that made me re-examine my own understanding and re-check what the bible says.
Right, so let's start. The article argues that there are a few problems with interpreting the passage relating lukewarmness to our spiritual condition and zeal (as I believe it does refer to this). [My analysis and findings relating to the article's points are in blue text from here for clarity]
They argue that zeal is:
They argue that zeal is:
a) Subjective i.e. we all have a different interpretation of zeal or being on fire and even if we do lots of stuff for God, if we compare ourselves to another we may feel we're actually not hot or on fire.
This issue seems to be a good point at first glance, but it is a very human viewpoint and when looking at whether it is biblically accurate we run into many problems. This argument limits God, and it assumes we all compare ourselves to other Christians, or suggests that we should be comparing ourselves to other Christians. It looks upon zeal for God as some measurable or quantifiable element that is only displayed through "things" we do like tithing or fasting.
What does the bible say? Christ tells us to be imitators of Him, He is our example and being transformed to be more like Him is the object of our lives as Christians. We are encouraged to work out our own salvation, and run our race. The more transformed we are into His image, the less self there will be anyway. Passion, fire or zeal is inward, a spiritual state; it is between the individual and God, driven by the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling us, and its outward reflection is a life lived wholly for and through Christ. The amount we tithe or the number of times we fast is not a measure of someone's zeal. A non believer can give money to the church or indeed fast! What differentiates fire or zeal then? It is a matter of the heart, and it is a God-to-individual relationship, and certainly not a comparison game.
Do we see Paul comparing himself to other Christians and comparing who is more on fire for God? We know that for all he did for Christ, he considers himself the least of the apostles, he knows he's is saved, but he never addresses his personal level of zeal; he certainly doesn't give us any indication in his epistles that we are to compare ourselves and our zeal-level to each other. Paul never comments on the level of anyone else's hotness or coldness, he just urges Timothy to ensure that he stirs the inner fire. There's no example of one Christian comparing their zeal for God with another.
Do we see Paul comparing himself to other Christians and comparing who is more on fire for God? We know that for all he did for Christ, he considers himself the least of the apostles, he knows he's is saved, but he never addresses his personal level of zeal; he certainly doesn't give us any indication in his epistles that we are to compare ourselves and our zeal-level to each other. Paul never comments on the level of anyone else's hotness or coldness, he just urges Timothy to ensure that he stirs the inner fire. There's no example of one Christian comparing their zeal for God with another.
Christianity is never portrayed in the Bible as something of a competitive sport; we don't compete or compare, we walk in the paths God has for us. We are continually reminded that God has set out a plan for us, so if He gives one a gifting and calling to minister to thousands of people as a travelling evangelist, yet to another He gives the gift of serving in a small local church, one could argue from a human perspective that the former has the more influence, the better "works" and thus more zeal for God as they're doing more, which is what the article implies. Somewhere there'll always be a person doing more spiritual stuff, fasting more, praying more, bringing more to Christ than you - that's what the article is saying. The bible never measures us against our brethren though. We are always accountable to God in the calling and paths He calls us to. He is concerned with the manner in which we do things - using our faith, acting in love - not how big and fancy the things we do are.
God measures everyone with the same yardstick: faith and love. Whatever we do, whatever His calling for us, be it big or small in human viewpoints, it's the faith we exercise the tasks with that determines how pleased He is with us, and how we outwork those tasks in His love. We can't measure someone else's faith level, and we can't measure the depth of someone's love, only God can.
God is personal and He deals with each of us as individuals. If we were measured by our works, then the less fortunate and less wealthy would be at a huge disadvantage. For example, take Luke 21 - the widow putting the two mites in the offering bowl, we can see how Jesus always looks at our heart, not the "good work" we are doing. The widow gave the equivalent of a few pence. Others gave the huge gifts - substantial amounts of money. Yet her offering, as tiny and insignificant as it was, was borne out of her love for God, and her faithful heart to God by giving everything she had, even though it was only a few pence. A few pence can do little practical good in the offering tray. It can't fix a roof, or feed the hungry. If we measure her by human standards she was the least zealous, and the person who put in the highest amount was the most zealous. Yet we know that isn't so because Jesus tells us that actually in His sight, to Him, she put the most in, and she was the only one there He personally commended. Others were putting in sizeable donations we are told, yet they don't get mention or recognition because it was her spiritual condition - her love, her faith and her passion for God that Jesus was concerned and pleased with. He pointed this out to illustrate how men look outwardly at good works (giving to God is good!) but Jesus is always concerned with the person, and the heart. He's personal.
God is God, and He is the one who searches hearts and sees our faith and love. Only He can look upon the heart, so zeal/enthusiasm/fire, passion....whatever you want to call it, it is between the individual and God. It is the Holy Spirit's job to search our hearts - not other Christians. Zeal is not measurable or quantifiable in human terms. However God is infinite and one could say that the human heart is His speciality. So I ask, is zeal or passion for God supposed to be subjective? Why would it be when we are all in personal relationships with Him? Everything we do, we are told to do as if unto the Lord - not for others to compare themselves to, or us likewise to compare ourselves to them.
In the context of the scripture, look at Jesus' epistle to Ephesus in Chapter 2. They're doing great - they're being patient, enduring, they're testing those who claim they are apostles, they are having trouble with wicked men, and have toil and trouble in their lives; amidst all this they're not growing weary or faint. All good. Great attitude. Doing what they should be. Yet Jesus calls out that they're neglecting their first love, Him. Who can measure that defect visibly amidst all the good they're doing? No one, except Jesus. Outwardly it's an A grade for them. They're passionate for the things of God, keeping true to His Word, doing what they should be, they've just taken their eyes and attention off the personal love relationship with Jesus. Seems an odd thing - how can you be doing so well, bearing up in the strength of God, enduring trials and troubles so well that Jesus commends you for it, yet still have neglected your first Love? This church, Ephesus, was the apostolic church! These guys should know better, you'd never assume that they would neglect their personal relationship with Jesus. So we're not immune to it either and we need to ensure that we don't put our own assumptions into God's Word and our interpretation of it.
God is God, and He is the one who searches hearts and sees our faith and love. Only He can look upon the heart, so zeal/enthusiasm/fire, passion....whatever you want to call it, it is between the individual and God. It is the Holy Spirit's job to search our hearts - not other Christians. Zeal is not measurable or quantifiable in human terms. However God is infinite and one could say that the human heart is His speciality. So I ask, is zeal or passion for God supposed to be subjective? Why would it be when we are all in personal relationships with Him? Everything we do, we are told to do as if unto the Lord - not for others to compare themselves to, or us likewise to compare ourselves to them.
In the context of the scripture, look at Jesus' epistle to Ephesus in Chapter 2. They're doing great - they're being patient, enduring, they're testing those who claim they are apostles, they are having trouble with wicked men, and have toil and trouble in their lives; amidst all this they're not growing weary or faint. All good. Great attitude. Doing what they should be. Yet Jesus calls out that they're neglecting their first love, Him. Who can measure that defect visibly amidst all the good they're doing? No one, except Jesus. Outwardly it's an A grade for them. They're passionate for the things of God, keeping true to His Word, doing what they should be, they've just taken their eyes and attention off the personal love relationship with Jesus. Seems an odd thing - how can you be doing so well, bearing up in the strength of God, enduring trials and troubles so well that Jesus commends you for it, yet still have neglected your first Love? This church, Ephesus, was the apostolic church! These guys should know better, you'd never assume that they would neglect their personal relationship with Jesus. So we're not immune to it either and we need to ensure that we don't put our own assumptions into God's Word and our interpretation of it.
b) It means salvation is related to works - the zeal argument implies that more zealous or "hotter" Christians are saved from being spewed out of His mouth because of the works they do that makes them hot or zealous; yet we are not saved by works, we're saved by grace. It states that zeal is related to things we do, "works" - therefore we cannot ascribe the verse as meaning zeal for God.
We're not saved by works I completely 100% agree, although I personally don't think that the verse in Revelation is referring to a loss of salvation here, so if we interpret the "spewing" bit as something else, the point in the article becomes redundant anyway, unless the author thinks we can lose our salvation which is a whole other discussion entirely. Jesus was talking to the church - saved people. If they weren't truly saved, would He have bothered to write to them or address them as His church? Would He make the promises to them that He does? Possibly not.
What do we know? We know Jesus says what He means, so when He's talking to His church, they're His and they are saved. Thus, if we park the idea that spewing out of His mouth means a loss of salvation, and instead it means something different, let's look again. They're already saved - the issue of salvation is dealt with when we accept Jesus as saviour, that's what the bible teaches us. So, no matter how many good works they do or don't do, it doesn't affect salvation. Salvation is a free gift.
What do we know? We know Jesus says what He means, so when He's talking to His church, they're His and they are saved. Thus, if we park the idea that spewing out of His mouth means a loss of salvation, and instead it means something different, let's look again. They're already saved - the issue of salvation is dealt with when we accept Jesus as saviour, that's what the bible teaches us. So, no matter how many good works they do or don't do, it doesn't affect salvation. Salvation is a free gift.
If works are related to a measure of zeal in terms of hotness and coldness, then I have to refer back to my point above, because we're back into comparing one person's works against another's. That's not how God's kingdom works otherwise the apostle Paul and the Billy Grahams and Kenneth Copelands of this world would be the ones having all the zeal. Compared to how much good they do and how much God-influence they have, us average Joe's would be up the creek! We'd all be plunged into the 'lukewarm' or 'cold' camps by default.
The book of James explains to us that once we are saved, our faith will lead us into good works. These works don't lead to salvation, as we're already saved, but they are simply an outpouring of what's on the inside of us. We have a well on the inside of us bubbling up with God's loving-kindness, we have the gifts of the spirit operating through us, and our lives ought to be overflowing with the fruit of the spirit. If we aren't producing good works as a by-product of our faith and love in and for God, then we're completely missing the point. Now clearly that's a hugely paraphrased version of James, but it is is what the essence of the book says. Please, read it for yourself and check it out. Ephesians 2 v 10 says that we are:
His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
So we are to do good works, but we aren't saved by them, they don't earn us our salvation - the bible makes that more than clear. But they should be a product of our love and faith.
I'm going to come back to 'works' shortly. Jesus is concerned with the works we do. Not because our good works can earn us righteousness - they can't. But He is looking at what we do with our lives. That should become more evident in a moment when we delve into the context of the first 3 chapters of Revelation.
I'm going to come back to 'works' shortly. Jesus is concerned with the works we do. Not because our good works can earn us righteousness - they can't. But He is looking at what we do with our lives. That should become more evident in a moment when we delve into the context of the first 3 chapters of Revelation.
c) Jesus says He prefers us to be cold rather than lukewarm, and He couldn't possibly mean that He'd prefer us to have no enthusiasm for Him. Some zeal or enthusiasm must be better than none?
"If Jesus was referring to the things we do for him, why would he say it’s better to do nothing than something? This doesn’t make any sense." The article then ascribes lukewarmness as a mixture of law and grace.
This has to be called out as supposition and conjecture as far as I can see, and it's a contradiction of the actual bible. To assume it can't mean what is says and therefore ascribe a different meaning to it is not something I can do or agree with without sound biblical proof. As I said previously I'm not here to be pulling down someone else's posts or opinions, I'm not attacking someone else, in fact I have the utmost respect and joy that people love God and post things online to teach, exhort and encourage people in the faith.
It actually seems a fair and logical assumption - mixture of grace and law for lukewarm, Jesus can't mean he prefers no zeal to a bit of zeal, or some works to no good works? But an assumption it is, as there's no biblical backing for this statement so we can't accept this point as valid as it even contradicts the text itself. We can't escape black and white. Jesus said "would that you were cold or hot!" It states that He prefers hot or cold to lukewarm. Let's be clear and precise - it does not say He wants us to be cold, simply that He finds hot or cold more palatable than lukewarm.
This has to be called out as supposition and conjecture as far as I can see, and it's a contradiction of the actual bible. To assume it can't mean what is says and therefore ascribe a different meaning to it is not something I can do or agree with without sound biblical proof. As I said previously I'm not here to be pulling down someone else's posts or opinions, I'm not attacking someone else, in fact I have the utmost respect and joy that people love God and post things online to teach, exhort and encourage people in the faith.
It actually seems a fair and logical assumption - mixture of grace and law for lukewarm, Jesus can't mean he prefers no zeal to a bit of zeal, or some works to no good works? But an assumption it is, as there's no biblical backing for this statement so we can't accept this point as valid as it even contradicts the text itself. We can't escape black and white. Jesus said "would that you were cold or hot!" It states that He prefers hot or cold to lukewarm. Let's be clear and precise - it does not say He wants us to be cold, simply that He finds hot or cold more palatable than lukewarm.
How do we deny the text that says he prefers cold or hot to lukewarm? Reading the text it is undeniable in my eyes. Admittedly it is unexpected maybe unsettling even, but just because it's not what we expect to hear, or what we want to hear, doesn't mean we can deny the text when it is plain or that we should change the meaning to something we feel more comfortable with. To assign a meaning of mixing law and grace when this hasn't been mentioned, isn't even alluded to or hinted at, and has no bearing on the language and words used, sits very uncomfortably with me.
I would welcome comments on this. Of course we agree that generally as humans, we feel that some enthusiasm must be better than none, but that does not necessarily mean we can conclude God thinks the same way. He tells us in Isaiah 55 v 8-9 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts
I would welcome comments on this. Of course we agree that generally as humans, we feel that some enthusiasm must be better than none, but that does not necessarily mean we can conclude God thinks the same way. He tells us in Isaiah 55 v 8-9 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts
Because it's not stated or implicitly implied in the Bible, or in this passage, I have to immediately dismiss the article's reasoning on this point as it is purely a person's opinion which appears to contradict the text. We do not know why or how Jesus finds a small amount of enthusiasm worse than no enthusiasm at all (or lukewarmness worse than coldness to be more accurate). What we do know is that is what He said because it's written down for us. You and I may feel that the absence of any zeal at all is worse than a bit of zeal, but does God? I certainly do not want to be putting words in God's mouth that He hasn't spoken. The text appears plain enough that to Jesus, lukewarmness is less preferable to being completely cold. If anyone can find some biblical truth contrary to this, then please feel free to share it; I'd be happy to come back to this point and study more.
So, a quick summary so far - I do agree that we are under grace; Jesus fulfilled the law, and the law was given to show man that without God he cannot. Cannot what? Cannot anything! He can't save himself, he can't live up to the standards God requires as a just and holy God, and he cannot escape the curse by any works or deeds of his own doing. We need Jesus. If we can live up to God's standard by following the law, then Jesus' death would have been in vain.
We are saved by grace because of HIS goodness and no goodness of our own is sufficient. We need Him. We deserve nothing, yet we get everything. That is grace.
I am whole-heartedly in agreement that mixing law and grace is not what we should be doing because as soon as we do that, we are into the realm of man thinking he doesn't need God's grace, which is pretty much the story of Israel throughout the old testament. They came to God, then they went it alone, going their own way. He pulls them back to Him, they wander off doing their own thing again, on repeat! Paul in his letters talks a lot about mixing law and grace, and he calls it falling from grace (Galatians 5 v 4). So far however, there's no biblical backing to the 3 main points made in the article by looking at them in the light of their context and focussing on the words of Jesus.
The article goes on and states that the work God is looking for is our faith in Him - which I agree with, but as they're already saved, they're already His church, that is is a given that they believe in Him. We do know from the letter that there is an element of self-reliance because they consider themselves in need of nothing, so they are possibly not exercising their faith in God's provision. Jesus deals with that element separately though asking them to purchase the gold from Him - not to rely on earthly treasures. There is much truth in the article, sound biblical truths, but again there's an obstacle of putting words in the bible that aren't there. It says "Jesus wants to spew out the self-righteousness in you so that he can remove the hypocrisy from you" but when I look in my bible it just doesn't say that, it doesn't imply that, and the context doesn't suggest that, and I am only interested in God's words.
Given all this, I asked the Lord, "is this what it means?" [referring to hot /cold / lukewarm meaning a mix of law and grace]. In my own spirit I feel that this is not the meaning of the verse.
If your love or interest wanes, you say it waxes cold. If you love passionately, or you have great zeal for something, you describe it as being on fire.
So, let's look up the original words used and see what their meaning is to gain more understanding and be in no doubt as to what we are dealing with. We must always go to the bible and study in context.
The Greek words used:
Cold - Str 5593 - psuchros = Chilly, cold. Literally and metaphorically. Sluggish, inert. From 5592 which means coldness. Root from 5594 = psuchro = breathe gently and voluntarily; blow cold; to cool by blowing; waning zeal or love, to chill, to wax cold.
Hot - Str 2200 - zestos = boiling hot, hot, fervent. From root 2204 = Fervant, zeal, boiled.
Lukewarm - str 5513 - chliaros = tepid, lukewarm, of the condition of the soul wretchedly fluctuating between a torpor and a fervour of love
I had to look up a definition of torpor - it means lethargy or a state of physical or mental inactivity.
Spew - str 1692 emeo = vomit, spew forth, throw up.
Mouth - str 4750 stoma = mouth; figuratively, an opening (in the earth); specially, the front or edge (of a weapon):--edge, face, mouth. The edge of a sword
The definitions seem quite clear. No hidden meaning, no deeper meaning that the translators haven't been successful in conveying. Hot means hot, and cold means cold. Lukewarm means tepid, and implies a fluctuation in temperature. There's no hint that it relates to mixing law and grace, or anything else.
Wanting to ensure my study is as thorough as possible, I felt directed to write down in a bullet point form what the context of the book was so far. Get the facts, put it in context - this is what the Holy Spirit always leads me to do when I study the bible. Being only 3 chapters in, I started at the beginning. The italics show how the Holy Spirit has directed me to look at them. I've included them for clarity.
Wanting to ensure my study is as thorough as possible, I felt directed to write down in a bullet point form what the context of the book was so far. Get the facts, put it in context - this is what the Holy Spirit always leads me to do when I study the bible. Being only 3 chapters in, I started at the beginning. The italics show how the Holy Spirit has directed me to look at them. I've included them for clarity.
- The book is Jesus' revelation. His revelation, from God the Father that He is conveying to His people. His words, His story
- There's a special blessing for those who read it
- It is revealed to John
- There are 7 churches which are addressed. (Interestingly, in the bible, 7 is the number of completeness or perfection! And there are lots of 7's in Revelation)
- He is talking about the things which are to come
- Jesus is talking. He uses different terms to describe/name Himself
- John explains what happened to him
- Jesus addresses 7 churches and asks John to write a special letter to each of them
- Each church is dealt with in order
- Each letter contains a similar construction / pattern.
Describe these patterns - Jesus uses a particular and unique way of describing Himself to each church (drawing on the ones He spoke earlier of to John)
- He comments on what they've been doing or what He's seen of them (I've seen your industry/activity/labours/toils/troubles/afflictions/distress/poverty/where you live/ record/ what you're doing / works - this is universal to all the churches)
- He says what is good (2 have nothing good)
- He says what they're not doing very good (another 2 have nothing bad!)
- He gives an admonition or warning if they don't repent
- He tells them how to improve
- He gives a similar and specific signing off of the letter ("he who has ears to hear...")
- He gives a unique promise to each church of a reward that awaits them
Look at the admonitions each church has if they don't repent
Ephesus - He will remove their lampstand
Smyrna- all good, they have no need of an admonition
Pergamum - He will come quickly and fight against them with the sword of His mouth
Thyatira - He will throw Jezebel and those who commit adultery with her on a bed of anguish; there will be pressing distress and severe affliction; her children will be struck dead
Sardis - He will come upon them like thief in the night
Philadelphia - all good, they have no need of an admonition
Laodicea - Spew them out of His mouth
Look at the remedies
Ephesus - repent and do the works you did previously (they had deserted their first love)
Smyrna - n/a
Pergamum - repent (they have people clinging to false teaching of Balaam and the Nicolations)
Thyatira - He will reward those for what they have done (doesn't state what reward that is, but the next verse indicates that those who are not followers of Jezebel He spares any obligation and tells them to hold fast). No specific remedy but asking them to hold fast - they've been doing well other than those who follow after Jezebel
Sardis - Call to mind the lessons they have received, rouse themselves, be awake, be strengthened, obey, keep awake and watch (He said they are supposed to be alive, but are dead! Clearly this is spiritually as if it is physically there's no church to write to...they'd all be with Him in heaven. None of their work meets His requirements)
Philadelphia - they're just told to hold fast, they're doing great
Laodicea- purchase gold refined from HIM to be truly wealthy, and white clothes to clothe them from being naked, to purchase salve for their eyes so they see, be enthusiastic and earnest and burning in zeal and repent (He said they were lukewarm, they proclaimed they were rich and in need of nothing, but actually they were wretched, poor, pitiable, blind and naked)
Each time He gives to the church a remedy, it directly relates to what He said they weren't doing very well in. For each church the admonition and command on how to remedy connects back to the thing that he reprehends them for. The Laodiceans are not told to stop mixing law and grace. Indeed they are told to be enthusiastic, earnest and burning in zeal, and he addresses their materialism and how it affects their spiritual state. The verse, and in fact the entire letter to the Laodiceans deals with their spiritual state - spiritually they are lukewarm, spiritually they are blind, spiritually they are wretched and poor. We know this isn't literal as the whole church isn't physically blind, they're well off in the natural, but Jesus looks not to the physical, He looks on the heart and He sees that they're poor.
The next chapter (chapter 4) is "after this" dealing with new issues, new surroundings, new place. A clear change of pace and subject. But the first 3 chapters have to be taken all together as a whole; if you read them in one sitting they make much more sense than reading them in isolation.
I just want to draw back to the fact the for each church, He comments on what they're DOING with their lives - their works or deeds if you will. Jesus refers to them as works and deeds more than once in these first few chapters to different churches and they relate to the outward works of faith. The article suggests that the Laodiceans were being called out by Jesus due to their works - but look at each letter - each church was! This wasn't unique to Laodicea. Each letter is like a progress report.
My study conclusions are that
* when looking at the whole epistle and taking the prior chapters into account, the mixing of law and grace can not be ascribed as a metaphor for being lukewarm, otherwise by default the other churches would have had the same comments.
* Each church was being addressed about their works, their hardships, their troubles, their record etc.
*In light of the context, the very similar and clear pattern put forward by Jesus, it is more than evident that it can not possibly mean mixing law and grace. If it did mean that, Jesus would surely say it more clearly?
*He patently tells the Laodicean church "be enthusiastic and in earnest and burning with zeal and repent" (verse 19).
* Working through the text, looking at the patterns, the language, the syntax, the original Greek, and a careful, prayerful and thorough reading of the whole context of the chapters surrounding the verse, I remain certain that the verse is relating to the church's spiritual condition of their passion and zeal for God and His Word.
*I find no evidence of it relating to mixing law and grace, nor can I find any other interpretation of this verse.
However, I would urge you to do your own study and come to your own conclusions with the help of the Holy Spirit for guidance; Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth (John 16 v 13).
- If the Laodiceans were being judged by works and mixing law and grace by trying to do good works (which is what the article suggests), then surely each of the 7 churches should have had the same comments because 5 out of 7 were doing something good (good works) and some things not so good (not so good works)? Yet they didn't get judged the same way.
- He said to the Philadelphian church and other churches that He saw their works, yet He had NOTHING bad to report about that church (Philadelphia).
- The same Greek word is used for "works" for both the Philadephian church and the Laodicean church yet, one has nothing bad reported, one has nothing good reported, thus trying to argue that the meaning of the whole verse relates to this word is false. In fact the same Greek word for works is used 11 times in chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation - the chapters covering the epistles of Jesus to the seven churches!
(Gr 2041- érgon (from ergō, "to work, accomplish") – a work or worker who accomplishes something. 2041 /érgon ("work") is a deed (action) that carries out (completes) an inner desire (intention, purpose) - If the Laodiceans are being called out for doing works to earn salvation, or relying on their works for position with God (mixing law and grace - doing things to be good in God's eyes by keeping the law and not relying on God's grace and supply), then why didn't Jesus say any good things about the good works they were doing, like He did about the Philadelphian church, and other churches?
- Context is king. If the Philadelphian church and others were given a good report by Jesus for works, then we would have a similar scenario for the Laodiceans by default. There is a clear pattern in the letters, the language is clear. The Philadephian church had a glowing report
- Jesus is also quite clear on the issues within the churches. He has been direct in naming their problems. In the context of the text, one has to ask why He would be vague and not use plain language for the final church, like He has been for the other 6 churches?
My study conclusions are that
* when looking at the whole epistle and taking the prior chapters into account, the mixing of law and grace can not be ascribed as a metaphor for being lukewarm, otherwise by default the other churches would have had the same comments.
* Each church was being addressed about their works, their hardships, their troubles, their record etc.
*In light of the context, the very similar and clear pattern put forward by Jesus, it is more than evident that it can not possibly mean mixing law and grace. If it did mean that, Jesus would surely say it more clearly?
*He patently tells the Laodicean church "be enthusiastic and in earnest and burning with zeal and repent" (verse 19).
* Working through the text, looking at the patterns, the language, the syntax, the original Greek, and a careful, prayerful and thorough reading of the whole context of the chapters surrounding the verse, I remain certain that the verse is relating to the church's spiritual condition of their passion and zeal for God and His Word.
*I find no evidence of it relating to mixing law and grace, nor can I find any other interpretation of this verse.
However, I would urge you to do your own study and come to your own conclusions with the help of the Holy Spirit for guidance; Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth (John 16 v 13).
Before I sign off from this very long post, I want to end with two things. Firstly, I mentioned earlier that the term being spewed out of His mouth doesn't necessarily refer to loss of salvation. That's my personal opinion and I have no biblical evidence to back this up. My reasoning is that there was another church mentioned with no good to report, yet there doesn't appear to be an indication of a loss of salvation for them. There's no pattern to suggest that bad reports = loss of salvation.
However, I am searching the scriptures, and seeking more understanding of this phrase. It makes for interesting discussion, but I want to make it clear, I'm not saying it does or doesn't mean that. As there's currently no other passage that I can find so far to authenticate that it means losing salvation, and given other scriptures we all know and love (such as no one being able to snatch us out of His hand - John 10), it is simply my belief it may refer to something else.
Secondly, because it is so important, I want to stress once more just to make it completely clear that good works do not earn salvation, as we've already established that we are saved by grace. As Christians we can't shy away from "works" like it is a dirty word. Good works don't produce or earn us salvation. Our salvation doesn't depend on our works, it the confession of our faith in Jesus as the Son of God, coming to earth, dying for us, and being raised from the dead that is our salvation. But salvation doesn't stop there. We are to put Jesus as our Lord, live for, in and through Him, letting Him transform us by the renewing of our mind. It is a progressive personal relationship that develops and buds and is.... wow. I don't have another word to describe it, just wow.
Our lives should be filled with faith, love, hope, and with zeal, fire and passion for God, and these result in good works. We are not measured against other Christians in some kind of Christian leaderboard of who has the most faith, love or good works either.
I fully believe that we are saved by grace. We don't live under law, and we can't mix the law and grace and think that by doing good works we will earn some kind of righteousness or good standing with God. We all deserve the punishment that Jesus took for us, yet we are participants in His great love and grace. Thus, our lives should be a reflection of His goodness and grace, and this is what produces good works or good deeds. It's like a beautiful by-product that blesses others as well as ourselves.
I fully believe that we are saved by grace. We don't live under law, and we can't mix the law and grace and think that by doing good works we will earn some kind of righteousness or good standing with God. We all deserve the punishment that Jesus took for us, yet we are participants in His great love and grace. Thus, our lives should be a reflection of His goodness and grace, and this is what produces good works or good deeds. It's like a beautiful by-product that blesses others as well as ourselves.
In earnest I have searched, prayed about and studied these 3 chapters of Revelation for my own sake but also because I feel a sense of responsibility by posting publicly to ensure I am speaking the uncompromised truth of God's word. I appreciate anyone who reads my posts, and I want to ensure it is as sound biblically as possible.
I know there's lots more to learn, but I hope I have provided some clarity to the verse in question and how I approach interpreting and studying the Word of God. The link to the article is below, and my intent is in no way to discredit the source/author of it, but to put forward my findings from my prayer and devotion time. Please study it all for yourself and only take God's word on the matter.
I know there's lots more to learn, but I hope I have provided some clarity to the verse in question and how I approach interpreting and studying the Word of God. The link to the article is below, and my intent is in no way to discredit the source/author of it, but to put forward my findings from my prayer and devotion time. Please study it all for yourself and only take God's word on the matter.
I really welcome comments and if you did read this far, you deserve a medal! Go give yourself a medal or at least a cuppa! Be blessed
No comments:
Post a Comment