There are several indications that these issues of “hot” or “cold” are not to be understood as spiritual epithets. These indications are the terms themselves, in the way they are used, as well as what follows, within the text of the letter. Once we have taken the time to explore these things, then we should be well-positioned to make a guess at what it might be that has Jesus desiring to vomit this church from out of His mouth (3:16b), and why He eventually goes on to speak of standing and knocking and coming in for the purpose of sharing a meal. Again, it is unlikely that this church is being left on their own to figure out what it is that they are doing that makes them so unfit in the eyes of Jesus. There must be something definite to which Jesus is pointing, and such would be much more in line with the Jesus that we see in the record of the Gospels.
Here in Revelation, as in the Gospels, when Jesus indicates that He is taking issue with a certain practice, there must be something specific to which corrective action can be applied, so that they are not arbitrarily flailing about in an effort to improve their spiritual temperature. Thinking about the issue in this way (solely spiritual) is nothing but looking at the words of the text with our modern spectacles, and attempting to extrapolate nothing but spiritual analogies and application from what we find there. If we do this, we simply fail to view this letter in the same context in which the rest of the Bible demands to be viewed, which is that of a long-running historical narrative that is highly dependent upon cultural, historical, social, and even geographical underpinnings.
If we are to believe that the whole of our faith is based on the Resurrection of Jesus from the grave as an actual, physical event that took place within time and history; and if we are to understand Jesus and His message and ministry based upon the narrative of Jewish history as actual, physical events that happened to actual, physical people within time and history; and if we are to believe that the kingdom of God is something that will be established on earth as an actual, physical presence (though we may not understand the exact nature of that physicality) at some point in the future, then why should it be so unbelievable that Jesus is chiding this church for something that they were actually, physically doing, so that they could identify it and make actual, physical corrections so as to reverse the vomit inducing nature of what it was that they were doing? If that is the case then, and if this church could be expected to know precisely what it is to which Jesus refers, then it stands to reason that we should be able to make a contextual exploration so as to be able to reach the same conclusion, with a tangible point of reference, that Jesus expected from this church.
In considering this process, what should be quite telling for us, and what should guide our considerations, is what Jesus says about Himself and what He will do. It will probably be far more appropriate for this church (and us) to focus on that, and how what He says relates to how they truly (and ultimately we) needed (and need) to see themselves (and ourselves). This would seem to be the proper way to go about doing things. Scriptural exegesis should begin with text in context, with efforts made to tease out the truth or truths contained therein, doing the best we can to put aside modern points of view and pre-suppositions that will hold us back from truly and rightly seeing Jesus.
Acknowledging the difficulty inherent in the act of setting the familiar and the comfortable aside should also cause us to tread lightly when it comes to making doctrinal pronouncements. That’s not to say that we should not have the courage of our convictions, but rather, it is a humble nod to the limitations with which we are forced to live and with which we come to the text of Scripture. Yes, the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, but the Holy Spirit does not re-shape history, nor is it likely that the Holy Spirit rewards willful ignorance of history or the outright refusal to take advantage of resources that can give us a greater depth of knowledge by which we can better understand the world and the time in which our Creator took it upon Himself to become robed with human flesh and walk this earth.
With that accomplished (exegesis in context to the very best of our ability by making the best possible use of the providentially provided resources that are available to us), we can then move on to applying these truths to ourselves and our situations, always being willing to discard conclusions and positions, no matter how sincerely reached or how long they have been held, that are shown to be in conflict with the message of Scripture, when presented in its narrative context. We cannot start with our own context and our mindsets that are constructed by the world in which we live, and then apply those things to Scripture for the purpose of finding truth. This is likely to result in the erection of un-warranted walls and divisions, driving the church into a variety of corners and an endless and ultimately useless, futile, and embarrassing game of “us versus them.”
No comments:
Post a Comment