Laodicea's Wealth (part 2)

However, contrary to what might be expected, not only did Laodicea not request assistance from Rome or from the emperor, they actually declined the assistance that was offered, choosing instead to rebuild and restore the city from their own means.  This, of course, would grant Laodicea some measure of independence from Rome; but only a measure, as they still relied on the existence of the empire and the relative security and stability it afforded.  In fact, Laodicea received from Rome the title of “free city,” and was the “conventus” of its territory, meaning that it functioned as the capital city of a division of the Roman province in which it was located.  This meant that it would be the seat of a district court, as well as the headquarters for other governmental functions for the region. 

Taken together, the facts of the great wealth of the city, that the wealth enabled them to decline assistance from Rome after a catastrophe, and that it was a seat of provincial government (though not relying on the largesse or beneficence of Rome or of the emperor, in contrast to so many other cities of the region), Jesus’ chiding of His church for its insistence that they were rich, that they have acquired great wealth, and that they were in need of nothing becomes quite understandable. 

Now, this is not meant to be a condemnation of wealth.  Taking a negative view of wealth, whether civic or individual, based on these words, would be unwarranted and out of context.  What one must keep in mind as progress is made in pulling back the layers of nearly two thousand years of cultural changes that have served to obfuscate from view what would have been easily seen and understood by the Laodiceans in their day (they would have known about declining imperial assistance in rebuilding, they would have known why, and as citizens of Laodicea they would have been quite proud of that fact), is that their wealth is what is causing them to engage in practices that have Jesus wanting to vomit them out of His mouth. Therefore, these practices are not in line with what can be observed in His mission, nor are they in accordance with the message of the Gospel. 

The practice or practices (as the case may be) of this “lukewarm” city (Laodicea) stands in contrast to what takes place in the “hot” and “cold” cities (the well-known epithets assigned to Hierapolis and Colossae).  The church in Laodicea, correspondingly, is being asked to observe the difference in practice between itself and the churches in those other cities and to mimic the practice, thereby becoming either hot or cold, either of which was perfectly acceptable to Jesus.

After commenting on their wealth and need of nothing, Jesus makes an interjection that serves to negate any vaunted ideas of self as citizens of Laodicea that might have arisen from such thoughts, saying that this church did not realize that they were actually “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (3:17b).  Not only is this a challenge to their honor, metaphorical and analogical application seems to be unavoidable, as Jesus wants them to understand that though they may be wealthy, their nauseating practice that partially stemmed from the fact of their wealth actually showed them to be something far different.

Speaking In Tongues (part 24)

Skipping over a few verses (though the skipped verses do mention speaking in tongues), brings this study to the twenty-second verse where Paul writes “So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers” (1 Corinthians 14:22a).  What does Paul mean by this?  Inevitably, this runs back to the fact that the activity of speaking in tongues, as if possessed by the spirit of a god, is not an uncommon feature of a religiously-oriented assembly and would not be an unexpected component of an association that honored a particular god, as did the Christians. 

Offering up some reasonable conjecture, one might be able to propose that those that joined in as observers or casual witnesses of the meal-based Christian assembly, and were thereby placed in a position in which they witnessed such activity, would be aided in their realization that the Christians worshiped a god by the name of Jesus (a god that was crucified and said to be resurrected).  Furthermore, in witnessing the nature of the activity around the meal table of the association that honored this god Jesus, whose story was substantially different than that of any other god of which they might be acquainted, the radically different social order (no obvious honor-based distinctions) that was to be on display in the assembly would be inescapable.  Finally, when excessive honor was not conferred upon the ecstatic speaker, the unbeliever would be curious as to this diversion from accepted social practices. 

The second half of the twenty-second verse has Paul writing “Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers, but for believers” (14:22b).  This, of course, is a speaking forth of the word of the Creator God (generally calling the covenant people or powers-that-be to account for their failures to live up to their respective obligations, and often using veiled language).  As usual, one does not approach these particular words independently of, or in isolation from the other mentions of prophecy within the same train of thought, but hears them in the context that has been created for them. 

Returning then to the first verse of the chapter, one is reminded of the instruction to “Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”  In verse three: “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.”  In verse four, “the one who prophesies builds up the church.”  In verse five, with a contrast built upon what has been said about the strengthening of the church, one finds “I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more than you would prophesy,” with the attachment of verse six, which then reads “The one who prophesies is greater,” because the result is “the church may be strengthened.” 

Paul has already encouraged them to abound in manifestations of the Spirit of the Creator God for the purpose of strengthening the church (14:12), with that strengthening also encompassing the previously mentioned encouragement and consolation, clearly connected to prophecy, and all of it has been done in the context of pursuing the most-to-be-honored gift of self-sacrificial love that has been highlighted in the thirteenth chapter. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 2)

The very first recorded cases of that which can be termed as glossolalia, or ecstatic speech attributed to the activity of the gods upon a believer, goes as far back as 1100 B.C.  On that occasion, it was a worshiper of the Egyptian God Amun that was said to have attracted attention to himself through making sounds in a strange, ecstatic tongue.  He reported himself to have been possessed by the god.  Seven hundred years later, the famous Greek philosopher Plato demonstrated that he was quite well acquainted with the phenomenon of speaking in tongues, as he made reference to several families who habitually practiced ecstatic speech, with prayers and utterings offered as they were supposedly possessed by the spirit of their gods. 

Plato would also go on to point out that these practices had even been said to have brought physical healing to those who engaged in them.  Accordingly, and because they had no reason to presume otherwise, Plato and those contemporary with him casually and confidently asserted that these occurrences were in fact caused by some type of divine inspiration.  It was his suggestion that the god simply took possession of the mind during this state, inspiring the individual so possessed with utterances that he could neither understand nor interpret. 

In the century prior to the coming of the Christ, the poet Virgil, speaking of the Sybilline priestess that lived on the island of Delos, described her activity of speaking in ecstatic tongues.  This was explained by her being in some type of mysterious union with the god Apollo.  This union was reported to have happened while she meditated in a haunted cave, amidst what was described as the eerie sounds of the wind as it played strange music through the narrow crevices of the rocks. 

Several of the mystery religions that inhabited the Greco-Roman world in which the church first developed also recorded the phenomenon of speaking in tongues.  These include the Persian cult of Mithra, the Egypt-based cult of Osiris, and the Dionysian, Eulusinian, and Orphic cults of Macedonia, Thrace, and Greece.  Lucian of Samosata, a reliable historian of the ancient world that lived in the second century, to whom the church owes a debt because of his records concerning the meal practices of the Greco-Roman world, described an example of glossolalia in one of his written works.  In it, the ecstatic utterance was performed by somebody described as a roaming believer in the Syrian goddess that went by the name of “June” (the month is named after her). 

Focusing on Corinth, the prevalence of cults that spoke in tongues, especially in what is the wider geographic area by which the city of Corinth was bounded, informs an observer that there would be a high degree of familiarity with the practice within the city.  This becomes especially poignant if one was to consider the geographical and cultural position in which Corinth was situated at the time of Christ, and a short time later, of Paul.