With all of that
said, having posited that the “temperature” terms were geographical indicators,
it is now possible to posit that use of “hot” is in all likelihood a reference
to the city of Hierapolis. It should be said that this is not
groundbreaking by any means, and the same can be said for the applications that
will be made to the usage of both cold and lukewarm. These things have
long been understood, but for some reason, they have been completely obscured
in modern and popular considerations of Revelation and its letters to the
churches. It might be casually referenced, but not worked out to its
logical and contextual conclusion, as commentators want to tread the far more
popular path of Revelation as a book that tells the future, rather than a
writing that tells about a faithful God and what He expects from His people as
they go about living their lives in this world as His image-bearers.
The city of Laodicea
was located five miles north of the city of Hierapolis. In Hierapolis,
there were hot springs. Owing to this, Hierapolis gained fame as a health
resort, as well as being the place for the worship of the god Heracles, who was
looked to as the god of health and hot waters. Archaeology indicates that
Laodicea had an aqueduct that probably carried water from the hot mineral
springs of Hierapolis.
If this is the case,
remembering that this study is attempting to determine the impetus of the
communication from the context of what could be readily understood by its
recipients rather than from the position of attempting to unravel the events of
world history using Revelation as a guide in the effort, then not only should one
think “Hierapolis” when reading “hot,” but one can easily imagine that the
residents of the region would have thought of Hierapolis in connection with hot
as well.
If “hot” is a reference to a city, then
it would make sense that “cold” is also a reference to a city.
Furthermore, if the “hot” of the nearby city of Hierapolis is a reference to
its famous hot springs, then for rhetorical consistency, “cold” should also be
making reference to water as well; and that city should be in the general
vicinity of Laodicea. Is there a city to which one can logically apply
this epithet? It seems that there is, and the candidate is the city of
Colossae.
Colossae and Laodicea
were situated in relative proximity. Not
only are they close in that they are approximately eleven miles apart, but the
churches appear to be close in communication, owing to the Apostle Paul’s
references to Laodicea in the close of his letter to the Colossians in which he
instructs the church at Colossae to share the letter with the church at
Laodicea, while also indicating that they church at Laodicea will share its
letter with the church at Colossae. Paul also makes mention of Laodicea
earlier in the letter, when he writes: “For I want you to know how great a
struggle I have for you, and for those in Laodicea” (Colossians 2:1a).
Clearly, there is something of a close connection between Laodicea and
Colossae. The churches were familiar with each other.
Beyond the multiple
mentions (five) of Laodicea, one can also happily find a reference to
Hierapolis in this letter. Paul, writing about Ephaphras, says that “he
has worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and Hierapolis”
(4:13b). This implies a relationship between Hierapolis and Laodicea
beyond that of an aqueduct. If the church at Colossae “learned the gospel
from Ephaphras” (1:7a), as Paul communicates within his opening statements to
the Colossians, and then goes on to mention Epaphras in connection with both
Laodicea and Hierapolis, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that Epaphras
may well have been responsible for bringing the message to all three cities
(though one should certainly refrain from dogmatism on this statement).
No comments:
Post a Comment