Laodicea's Wealth (part 4)

With His words of white clothing, Jesus produces a sharp contrast between His white clothing that is on offer, and the clothing made from black wool that was productive of wealth in this city.  That wealth is creating an insidious problem in the church, and that problem need not exist.  Again, the crux of the issue is not the wealth but rather the response to the wealth by those that are calling Jesus Lord, yet denying Him by their actions.     

Having made reference to Laodicea’s place in the world of finance (buying gold), as well as their position in the fashion world (white clothing in contrast to the black wool), mention is then made of one more source of wealth that has a hand in contributing to that which is happening within this church in Laodicea, and is displeasing to Jesus.  John reports Jesus saying, “buy eye salve to put on your eyes so you can see!” (Revelation 3:18c) 

While this could be thought of as an allusion to Jesus’ healing of the blind, and specifically to the instance of record in which Jesus spits on the eyes of the man whose sight is restored (Mark 8:23), or to the time when Jesus spit on the ground to make some mud and smeared the mud into the eyes of a man that had been born blind (John 9:6)---both of which were interesting types of eye salve to be sure, it is far more likely that the reference hits much closer to home for those that made up this particular congregation. 

This reference to eye salve, or to some type of eye medication, is more than likely yet another reflection of the historical situation in Laodicea.  So once again, these words have an important contextual setting that, when recognized, will keep an observer from running off the tracks into strictly spiritual (and possibly incorrect) interpretations.  At the risk of being overly repetitive (though this is not truly a risk), spiritual applications (for lack of a better term) can best be accomplished and are most effective when steps are taken to hear the words as they would have been heard by the original hearers, to be understood and applied in that context so as to grasp the underlying truths that are being communicated, and then translated through time for personal application. 

That said, the historical situation in regards to the eye salve has to do with the fact that the region in which Laodicea is located is Phrygia.  There is some debate as to whether or not this is actually the case, as Laodicea is sometimes said to have been a part of other regions, such as Caria.  Contributing to the inability to pin down exact locations is the fact that territorial limitations were often very poorly defined and always changing.  The region of Phrygia was famous in the ancient world because of the “Phrygian powder” produced there.  This powder was an ingredient in various eye medications. 

To go along with the fact of the Phrygian powder, an ancient historian by the name of Strabo reports that there was a medical school in Laodicea, and that this was the location of the practice of a renowned eye doctor.  When coupling the statement about eye salve in the letter to Laodicea with the fact of the Phrygian powder, it becomes reasonable to presume that Laodicea was located within this territory, at the very least at the time of the penning of Revelation.  Putting that aside, this is a clear indication that the Laodicean church had become blind to something in particular, that it must be corrected, and that the issue that must be corrected must be identifiable for the church. 

Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 3)

As Mark is written within the confines of the early church that found itself immersed within much knowledge of the historical Jesus, along with resounding and powerful traditions about Him that would clearly have weighed heavily upon them in the area of practice, it is right to call attention to the marked contrast between what can be observed here in Mark and what one finds presented in a situation in the Gospel of John (which is also written during a time and within a community steeped in first-hand knowledge of Jesus). 

In John, after Jesus’ arrest and initial questioning by Annas and Caiaphas, “they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Roman governor’s residence” (John 18:28a).  The author then reports that “They did not go into the governor’s residence” (18:28c).  Why did they not go in?  It was “so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal” (18:28d).  A stark contrast indeed.  In Mark, Jesus dines with a leper, sitting on his furniture and sharing a table with him in complete disregard of established custom, clearly communicating truths about the kingdom of the Creator God and about the nature of His own rule of that kingdom through what He was knowingly and consciously doing. 

When these two accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry include such stories, both are making points that are not easily dismissed.  One account represents separation and exclusion, whereas the other highlights inclusion --- pointing to a highly necessary aspect of ecclesiology.  John’s account of a concern to not become ritually impure before the commencement of Passover is useful because it points up the high level of seriousness with which such things were taken at the time.  For the sake of rabbinic credibility, and especially that of a rabbi that carried and stoked messianic expectations, issues of impurity would have been a concern. 

With no real record of time, and no textual sense of time between His certain contracting of ceremonial impurity while at this house and the celebration of Passover with His disciples, it would appear to His fellow members of the house of Israel that Jesus has, in fact, presided over a Passover (His last supper) celebration while he found Himself in a state of impurity.  With what one must presume is a well-founded grasp of this information, Mark demonstrates a complete lack of concern in this area, and instead presents this picture of Jesus that is stocked with a great deal of implications for those, both inside and outside of ethnic and national Israel, who call or will come to call Him Lord. 

There are other quite significant points to be made.  One of those points has to do with the fact that Jesus has chosen to dine in this particular house.  Calling upon the Gospel of John for assistance, one is reminded that Bethany is the place of Lazarus’ residence.  In chapter twelve of John, it appears that the reader is presented with a story (unless there was another story about Jesus being anointed with costly oil, the action being criticized as wasteful, and Jesus criticizing the criticizers and commending the “waste”) that is based upon the same meal as that which is reported in the fourteenth chapter of Mark. 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 30)

Paul’s conclusion in regards to contentment and that which is truly valuable is “But if we have food and shelter, we will be satisfied with that” (1 Timothy 6:8).  This is quite the contrast from the general attitude as reflected by the acquisitive human appetite.  It takes a genuine work of the Spirit of the Creator God to create such contentment.  This is true for all time, and stands in special and stringent opposition to Paul’s world, as it was largely defined by constructs of honor and shame. 

In the end, this contentment with food and shelter leads to the removal of oneself from the always ongoing competition to increase one’s public honor and avoid shame.  For the citizen of the kingdom of the Christ, it should be the case that a concern with that kingdom’s priorities, as an animation of the Spirit of the Creator God, would rush in to fill the void of this ardent opposition to the ways of the world.  This contentment, realized against the backdrop in which contentment is never an option, but may simply be viewed as an accommodation and acquiescence to a perpetual and unalterable position of shame in the eyes of the culture, operates in a stark contrast with the alternative. 

Along these lines, Paul writes “Those who long to be rich,” which can also be heard as those that pursue honor (and if they do, they do so according to the rules and regulations of the world’s patron, that being Caesar, thereby serving to ultimately enhance his public honor rather than that of the world’s true patron and Lord), “however, stumble into temptation and a trap and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge into ruin and destruction” (6:9). 

This is not a blanket condemnation of wealth, as wealthy can certainly be used rightly and to the ongoing extension of the kingdom of the covenant God as a manifestation of the mysterious work of His Spirit, but of misplaced desire, especially on the part of denizens of the kingdom of that God.  Understanding that, it is said that “the love of money is the root of all evils.  Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains” (6:10). 

The associated warning is “But you, as a person dedicated to God,” as a member of His kingdom community, with a higher and more honorable calling than can possibly be imagined (serving the poor, the blind, the lame, the maimed, orphans, widows, etc…), “keep away from all that.  Instead pursue righteousness, godliness, faithfulness, love, endurance, and gentleness” (6:11).  Righteousness is to be understood as a place among the Creator God’s covenant people.  Godliness can be heard as an imitation of the Christ, looking to His faithfulness in the midst of overwhelming shame.  Love, endurance, and gentleness were to be the hallmarks of the church.    

Speaking In Tongues (part 19)

With no break in continuity, Paul continues his line of thinking from chapter thirteen (which was continued from chapter twelve) into chapter fourteen and writes “Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:1).  Why does Paul here highlight the activity of prophecy?  It is because “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation” (14:3).  The contrast to the one who prophesies, for this church, are those that are engaging in glossolalia.  Drawing out that contrast, Paul writes “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit” (14:2). 

Because Paul is engaging in a rhetorical action here, it is not appropriate to isolate the statement here in verse two or in other verses.  It demands to be heard in context and in contrast.  So when one hears that “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God,” and that “he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit,” the proper response is not to throw up ones hands in a glorious salute to the person so speaking, but rather, to hear it in juxtaposition to what Paul says about the one who prophesies, who “speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.” 

This sufficiently directs attention away from a judgment call about the propriety of speaking in tongues, directing an observer instead to a consideration of the motivations for speaking in tongues.  With the honor accorded to public speech acts, and the honor that would be accorded to the person that is said to be possessed by the spirit of a god when engaging in the ecstatic and incomprehensible speech, the motivation of those doing so in Corinth is called into question. 

It follows then that when Paul writes “The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up” (14:4a), he is not making this assertion as if it is a good thing.  Once again, it stands in contrast to what follows, which is “but the one who prophesies builds up the church” (14:4b).  In this case, and in consideration of the honor and shame culture, and especially what has already been seen when it comes to the meal gatherings and the divisions in the church, a person building himself up needs to be viewed as a negative (this is not a positive thing).  He builds himself up because he is more concerned about his honor and demonstrating in historically acceptable ways his special relationship with his god, whereas the person that prophesies, by engaging in strengthening, encouragement, and consolation, is concerned about the church---concerned about the body. 

Paul does not rule out speaking in tongues, but he also does not make it a litmus test for the identification of one that is filled with the Spirit of the God that raised up Jesus from the dead.  He apparently sees it as a legitimate expression, but is concerned with why it is being employed and what results from its employment within the gathered church.  To that point, he writes “I wish you all spoke in tongues” (14:5a). 

Indeed, if all spoke in tongues, then there would be no opportunity for one person to gain undue honor from the practice, thus eliminating the problem as he sees it.  Here, one must be careful not to assert that Paul desires for this to be the norm among Christians.  It must be heard from within the context, which is that of the pursuit of honor in connection with speaking in tongues.  If all speak in tongues, then there will be no special awarding or assignment of honor to the speaker.  Paul understands that it is not the case, nor is it going to be the case that all speak in tongues, and concludes his statement with “but even more that you would prophesy” (14:5b). 

Den Of Lions (part 14)

The record of Daniel presents King Darius as being supremely vexed by the whole situation.  Concordantly, it is said that “the king,” after sealing Daniel to his doom, “departed to his palace.  But he spent the night without eating, and no diversions were brought to him.  He was unable to sleep” (6:18).  One is left only to wonder if the same could be said of Pilate after presiding over Jesus’ trial and sending him off to His death.  It is a remarkable feature of the book of Daniel, and of this story of Daniel and the lion’s den, that Darius is never criticized or condemned for the role that he played.  Such is a remarkable feature of the Gospels and their accounts of Pilate, in that the authors do not treat him harshly in their assorted tellings of the story. 

Though Pilate disappears from the New Testament scene following the Christ-event, this is not to be said of Darius.  After his fitful and troubling night, the reader learns that “In the morning, at the earliest sign of daylight, the king got up and rushed to the lion’s den” (6:19).  There is an interesting measure of hopeful trust on display in this action by Darius.  By this, he appears to have taken quite seriously whatever it is (likely the twenty-second Psalm, as previously discussed) that Daniel had said leading up to his being deposited into the den of lions. 

Honestly, why else would the king be rushing to the lion’s den?  What was he expecting?  It is unlikely that any had ever survived that particular ordeal---it is akin to the disciples rushing to the tomb upon hearing the reports of its being empty and that Jesus was alive.  The stark and obvious contrast however, is that the disciples did not rush to Jesus’ tomb of their own accord, and those that had previously visited the tomb did not do so with any expectation of a Resurrection.  They knew that Jesus was dead.  They had seen it happen.  This speaks well of the Persian king.  

Strangely, at least as it would sound in the ears of the king’s attendants, “As he approached the den, he called out to Daniel in a worried voice” (6:20a).  So not only has the king rushed to the lion’s den, but now, for some reason, he is calling out to the man that has been tossed into that place only to experience the certain death that has overcome every other person ever relegated to that place.  Is this not odd?  Is this not what is being done by those that call out to Jesus?  Indeed, it does seem to be the case that those that call out to Jesus are in fact calling out to one that was presumed to be dead, with that calling out based upon a hopeful trust in the God that is called upon and referenced as a God that delivers.  Darius is indeed cast as an instructive and sympathetic figure in this drama. 

Darius called out to Daniel and said, “Daniel, servant of the living God, was your God whom you continually serve able to rescue you from the lions?” (6:20b)  Here, reinforcing a guiding premise of this study, Darius essentially quotes Psalm 22:21, in which the Psalmist has implored the Creator God of Israel to “Rescue me from the mouth of the lion” (22:21a).  Those that hear this story go on to learn that “Daniel spoke to the king” (6:21a). 

Can one not imagine what was felt by Darius upon hearing the voice of Daniel?  Darius knows that he, through agreeing to a careless and somewhat conceited course of action had, by any reasonable consideration, brought death to the man who was his most highly trusted adviser.  Now, he is hearing Daniel speak.  The one whom Darius had sent to death has been, almost before his very eyes, raised up to life.  This is nothing short of a virtual resurrection, though it becomes known from the report of Daniel’s own words that “God sent His angel and closed the lion’s mouths so that they have not harmed me” (6:22a), so there has been no actual death and resurrection here.  

Suppression Of Truth (part 6 of 6)

Here again, one simply finds passion misdirected to that which dishonors, springing from self-idolatry, rather than to that which acknowledges and honors the Creator God.  In a sharp and revealing contrast to the shame that was said to have been experienced by Adam and Eve when their eyes were opened and they realized what they had done and that they were naked, Paul insists that mankind’s course of dishonor and idolatry would quickly reach the point at which “Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27b). 

Indeed, it would appear to be the general argument of Scripture that, because of the corruption that occurred at what is recognized as the fall of man, which is pointed to as the time at which the truth of the covenant God and of man’s purpose in this world to honor the Creator rather than self began to be suppressed, that death began its long reign.  Borrowing the language of the Apostle, this was a due penalty indeed.  With this in mind, Paul goes on to describe the lot of all of humanity, writing “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done” (1:28). 

Thusly, from time immemorial mankind has been “filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice… rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility” (1:28a).  It goes beyond that, as Paul goes on to write, “They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless” (1:29-31).  This would certainly seem to run amiss of that which the Creator intended for His specially created image-bearers.  Paul continues, writing that even though all this be the case “they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them” (1:32).  

So yes, because man had been imprinted with/as the divine image, he retains, even in the midst of his self-worship and petulant refusal to acknowledge a god beyond himself.  Here Paul implies that there is still a basic, residual knowledge and understanding of the Creator God’s decree of death for violation of His covenant, though the fallen image-bearers impotently rage against and attempt to deny that decree, along with the just Creator that stands behind it.  In spite of this damning indictment, the reader of the letter to the Romans eventually come to find that, because of the love of God, the Christ died (5:8) for that same humanity just described, which is most definitely a truth that should not, cannot, and will not be suppressed.