Theological
Commentary: Click Here
I tend to
notice contrasting ideas and imagery rather easily. Do you see the contrast between Philadelphia
and Laodicea in this reading? To be
honest, it might be better to ask if you feel the contrast. For me, contrasting ideas are more of an
issue of tone than vocabulary.
Take
Philadelphia. Here is a church that is
largely faithful. Yet, they have next to
nothing! They have no power. Yet in the absence of power they have kept
the faith. In their lack of power, God
commends them for remaining true!
Now take
Laodicea. They have so much that they
are claiming to lack nothing. Because
they perceive no lack, they also are complacent. Their priorities are on the wrong thing. God actually calls them lukewarm. Their faith has little to no use because
their abundance has taught them to rely upon themselves rather than relying
upon the Lord.
I find that
this message is consistent with the message of scripture. When Jesus came to the earth, it was the
elite, the well-to-do, and the ones without lack or need who rejected Jesus
(with a few notable exceptions). Of
those who received Christ, many of them had great need, had little in terms of
possession, and who were hungry in general for what God had to offer them.
The lesson
is clear here. Having things is not
automatically a sin. But we need to be
careful that our things do not prevent us from having a deep and meaningful
relationship with the Lord. We should
not let our possession allow us to stop relying upon God and trusting in Him throughout
our life.
<><
No comments:
Post a Comment