An Exposition Of The Letter To The Church In Laodicea

By Kenneth Alan Daughters [1]

In the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, we find seven letters from Christ to seven churches in Asia Minor. In these letters we find individualized messages to each church, correcting their errors and encouraging them according to their needs. Perhaps the most well known of these is the last, the letter to the church in Laodicea. The spiritual problems that faced the Laodicean church are very similar to the problems faced by many churches in the present age. Yet interpreters have found difficulty agreeing on a proper interpretation of this important passage. The purpose of this article is to provide an exposition of the letter to the church in Laodicea, examining the interpretive problems and suggesting proper solutions. It is hoped that the result will bring edification to those who need its message most.

The City

In each of His seven letters, Christ used the local conditions of the city to describe its spiritual state. This is especially evident in Laodicea. A proper understanding of Laodicea’s geographical and commercial situation is the key to unlocking the symbolism Christ uses in describing its spiritual complacency. One must first understand the city’s strengths and weaknesses to understand the manner in which Christ voices His exhortation.

Its Location

Laodicea was located in the Lycus River Valley in southwest Phrygia at the juncture of three important trade routes. The first road led east from Ephesus and the Aegean coast following the Maeander and Lycus rivers to the Anatolian Plateau. The second road led south from the provincial capital of Pergamum to the Mediterranean Sea at Attaleia. It was on this road that five of the seven churches to which Christ wrote were located. [2] The third road led southwest from Dorylaeum and northern Phrygia. [3] Located at this important junction, Laodicea quickly became a great commercial and administrative center. It was the wealthiest city in Phrygia during Roman times. [4]

The city was located 100 miles due east of Ephesus, and 45 miles southeast of Philadelphia. Its sister cities were Hierapolis, six miles to the north across the Lycus River, and Colossae, ten miles to the east on up the Lycus glen.

Antiochus II founded the city in the middle of the third century B.C. with the purpose of commanding the gateway to Phrygia. Its location was ideally suited for this purpose. It was on the great road from the coast to the inner country, between the Ephesian gates on the west and the Syrian gates on the east. The city occupied a square plateau several hundred feet high near the foot of the Lycus glen. The hills surrounding the city formed a natural fortification. [5]

Antiochus II Seleucid named the new city after his wife Laodice. Since he divorced her in 240 B.C., we know the city was founded prior to that year. Formerly the village bore the names Dispolis and Rhoas. [6] Its modern name is Eski-hisar, which means “the old fortress.” [7] Some commentators erroneously try to see etymological significance in the meaning of the name. Interpreting the name to mean something like the “rights, customs and rule of the people” they try to force this idea into Christ’s spiritual message. [8] Since there is no reference to the name of the city in the message of the letter, it is best to avoid such interpretations.

Its Water Supply

Though the city was well fortified both architecturally and naturally, it had one major weakness. It was entirely dependent on an aqueduct to supply its water. [9] Its location was chosen because of the road system, not because of its natural resources. If the city were attacked and under siege, it would not be long before the enemy found the aqueduct and cut it off, leaving the city helpless. No matter how strong their fortifications were, their need to import water must have prevented them from ever feeling secure when threatened with attack.

They could not use the Lycus or the Meander rivers because they were too dirty. [10] Besides, the Lycus River often dried up during the dry season. [11] Most of the springs in the area are hot springs, full of gases and other chemicals. The Laodiceans had no choice. They had to pipe in water from a distant spring through twin lines of stone pipe. Each stone was about three feet across and hollowed through the middle. “The water carried by those pipes was so charged with impurities that it dropped much of its load in flow; the calcium carbonate gradually clogging the pipes.” [12] The water was collected in a central water tower, and then distributed through the streets by pipes radiating from it. The water tower and sections of the terra cotta pipes are still visible today. “It is evident at least that the water it carried was bad, for thick deposits of calcareous impurities can still be seen almost choking the surviving section of the pipes.” [13]

Many, if not most, commentators identify the source of Laodicea’s water supply as its sister city six miles to the north, Hierapolis. This identification is probably based on two observations. First, the mineral matter that has badly choked the pipes is similar to those minerals deposited by the hot springs at Hierapolis. And second, the spectacular hot water cascades at Hierapolis are easily visible from Laodicea. The mineral deposits have formed a series of beautiful terraces edged with white cascades. Hemer’s description is complete:

Hierapolis had originally been a pagan religious centre, famous for hot petrifying springs which have produced scenery almost unique in the world. The sparkling waters well up in a large pool and flow in narrow raised channels of their own deposit across the ledge on which the city stood. When they reach the escarpment-edge, they spill over in white cascades visible for many miles away. At many places along the great cliff the waters tumble down a staircase of warm pools, each with a powdery white floor and a frilly rim of calcium carbonate. The subtle colours of the scene vary endlessly with every change of light and weather. The medicinal properties of the waters made Hierapolis a luxurious health resort in the Roman period, and imposing ruins and monumental tombs still stand above the cliff. [14]

But this popular identification is in error. A careful examination of the extant piping indicates that the source of the water is to the south, not the north. Several scholars have argued this point clearly. Hemer writes,

Many inaccuracies are current. In particular, we must emphasize that the aqueduct does not derive from the celebrated hot water terraces of Hierapolis on the other side of the valley, but from exactly the opposite direction. That is an apt case of the ease with which one may draw apparently obvious inferences from incorrect assumptions about the relationships between often-repeated but incomplete data. [15]

Johnson, another archaeologist, concurs with Hemer. He writes, “The water came, not from Hierapolis, but from the south, first by aqueduct and then, nearer the city, through stone barrel pipes. All of this was seen by Hamilton more than a hundred years ago.” [16] Even Ramsay, the one to whom most commentators turn for their information concerning the city of Laodicea, identifies the source of the water as the south. [17] In light of this testimony it seems strange that so many commentators, from Ford to Walvoord, would identify the water source as Hierapolis. We must concur with Rudwick and Green that “the orientation of the aqueduct suggests that the springs at the modern town of Denizli, five miles to the south, were the source.” [18]

Its Commerce

The city of Laodicea was a great commercial center. It was the judicial seat of the district. [19] It was also a large banking center. Cicero, the Roman statesman and philosopher, cashed his treasury bills of exchange in Laodicea in 51 B.C. (Ad. Fam. iii.5.4; Ad. Att. v.15.2). The city was so rich that following the earthquake of A.D. 60 that leveled the city, the people of Laodicea prided themselves in spurning the offer of financial aid from Rome and rebuilt the city more beautiful than before out of their own pockets. Tacitus wrote, “Laodicea arose from the ruins by the strength of her own resources, and with no help from us,” (Ann. xiv.27).

The fertile valley allowed the city to thrive agriculturally, and it became famous for its black wool textile industry. By careful breeding, a soft, glossy black wool had been produced that was woven into clothing and carpets (Strabo xii.578). Ramsay writes of the garments that were made for export and how they brought fame to the city:

Small and cheap upper garments called himatia, two kinds of birros (another sort of garment), one of native style and one in imitation of the manufactures of the Nervii, a tribe in French Flanders, and also tunics of several kinds, were made in Laodicea; and one species of the tunics, called trimita, was so famous that the city is styled Trimitaria in the lists of the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, and in some other late documents. [20]

In addition to its fame as a banking center and its textile industry, Laodicea also gained fame from its medical school, which developed a highly prized eye salve for alleviating various eye ailments. The medical school was established in connection with the Temple Men Carou, 13 miles to the northwest. Men was an ancient Carian god of healing who was later identified with Asklepios. [21] Zeuxis and Alexander Philalethes were among the teachers. [22] The famous Phrygian powder mentioned by Galen and Aristotle as medicine for weak eyes was probably manufactured in Laodicea. [23]

The significance of these three industries for which Laodicea was famous is that Christ refers to all three in His letter to the church there. They are rebuked in light of these successes, and they are exhorted on the basis of these accomplishments. [24]

Its Attitude

Laodicea was a wealthy and successful city. It was famous for its industries, and its people were so well off that they did not need help from man or God. The self-sufficiency they evidenced while rebuilding after the earthquake is ample demonstration of that. Christ will refer to this feeling of wealth in His letter to them.

In spite of all that money could buy them, Laodicea was not safe from attack. The people knew that their water supply could be easily cut off in a siege. This realization created an attitude of compromise, for which the city is also known. Blaiklock elaborates on this theme:

Such vulnerable communities must learn the arts of appeasement and conciliation. That Laodicea learned such arts is evident from the negative role she played in history. A society which lives in constant knowledge of its military helplessness develops characteristics of pliability and irresolution. Such a character can produce the kindlier virtues of tolerance and broadmindedness, but in the face of evil is also likely to engender weakness and a reprehensible spirit of compromise. Such, for good or ill, was the character Laodicea produced. There was no challenge in Laodicea from Jew or pagan, or if the challenge was there the Church did not accept it. The character of the town marked the Church. Hence the stern and vigorous condemnation in the letter which follows. [25]

Having thus examined the geographical and commercial highlights of Laodicea, we are adequately prepared to understand the context in which Christ rebukes and exhorts the church in this city.

The Letter

The structure of this letter is similar to the other six. It contains the normal introduction of the author, the rebuke, the exhortation, and the promise. What it lacks is the commendation. It is unique among the seven letters in that Christ has nothing good to say about this church. To balance this harshness, however, the promise at the end is especially great.

There is no evidence that Paul ever visited the church in Laodicea, though he does refer to it twice in his letter to the Colossians. Some think that the letter to the Ephesians may have been the long lost letter to the Laodiceans, but the evidence is slight. The church was well established by the time Christ wrote to it.

The Author

In His command for John to write this letter to the angel of the church in Laodicea, Christ identifies Himself as the Amen (3:14). This terminology has puzzled interpreters. The title is unique and may reflect a Hebrew original, such as can be found in Isaiah 65:16, “the God of Amen.” [26] Lenski believes it is Hebrew for “the Truth.” [27] Lange translates it “true, certain, faithful.” [28] Silberman argues on the basis of a midrash on Proverbs 8:22 that ὁ ᾿Αμήν [the Amen] should be rendered “master workman” and that Christ is being presented as God’s adviser in creation. [29] The best interpretation is suggested by Ford. She writes that the next phrase in the verse, “the faithful and true Witness,” “may have been added in order to define ‘the Amen’.” [30] Christ is seen as trustworthy in contrast to the unfaithfulness of the Laodicean church.

The second designation of Christ in verse 14 is even more controversial than the first. Beckwith admits that the title ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως [the beginning of the creation] could be interpreted as “the first of created existences,” but he rejects that as bad Christology. [31] In light of Paul’s letter to Colossae, Laodicea’s sister city, a better rendering would be “the Beginning of the creation of God.” Rather than teaching that Jesus was an angel, the very first Being ever created by God, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do, [32] we should see this in harmony with Colossians 1:15, 18. There Christ is said to be “the beginning,” and “the firstborn of all creation.” Thus, we should see this as teaching that Christ is “the uncreated principle of creation, from whom it took its origin.” [33]

The Rebuke

Normally at this point in the letter Christ would give some sort of commendation to the church. But with nothing good to say, He levies an unqualified rebuke. He says He knows their deeds. He complains that their works are neither cold nor hot. He wishes that they were one or the other. In the context of what we know about the geographical situation of the city, we can immediately see that Christ is using the imagery of the various water supplies in the region to point out their error.

The hot water must refer to the medicinal water of Hierapolis, which is still being used to treat the eyes of the local people today. The cold water must refer to the pure cold perennial stream at Colossae, which made it the earliest natural settlement in the valley. [34]

Quite clearly Christ says that He would rather have their works be characterized by being cold or hot, than somewhere in between. This also has puzzled interpreters. Most commentators take this to mean that Christ would prefer one to be unsaved, than a believer living in the flesh. Swete comments, “He prefers the frigid indifference which the Divine Love has not begun to thaw.” [35] Beasley-Murray elaborates:

To have enough religion to disguise one’s need of a living faith is to be in a worse condition than having no faith at all. An honest atheist is more acceptable to the Lord than a self-satisfied religious man, for such a man’s religion has blunted his conscience and blinded him to his need for repentance. The road to the cross has always been easier for the publican than for the Pharisee. [36]

This concept of cold being preferable to lukewarm is built on the teaching of such verses as John 9:41. There Christ tells the Pharisees that if they were blind, they would have no sin; but because they see and understand, their sin remains. Barnhouse summarizes, “If instead of being lukewarm, you were so cold that you should feel that coldness, then the very feeling of your need might drive you to the true warmth.” [37]

Not all commentators agree with this interpretation, however. Rudwick and Green’s article has influenced Hemer, Mounce, Carson, and Johnson to hold the position that Christ “is not saying that spiritual coldness is necessarily to be preferred to spiritual lukewarmness.” [38] They argue that the apathy of the pagan cannot be preferable in God’s sight to the half-heartedness of a Christian. Thus, these commentators reject the metaphorical interpretation of hot and cold as referring to opposite poles of spiritual fervor. Instead, they prefer to see them both as referring only to water and interpreted together. To be neither hot nor cold is to be lukewarm. “The application of the adjectives ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ to spiritual temperature, though natural to us, appears to be almost entirely foreign to the Ancient World.” [39] Hemer agrees that “the whole word-group is used more often of water than of anything else.” [40]

The result of this rejection of the metaphorical interpretation of hot and cold is the conclusion that the Laodicean church is not being criticized for its lack of fervor, but rather for the ineffectiveness of its works. Laodicea could not provide the refreshment of cold water like Colossae, nor could it offer the healing properties of the hot water of Hierapolis. Its lukewarm water was useless. [41]

In spite of their lengthy arguments, the evidence still favors the traditional metaphorical interpretation of hot and cold. In the context, the issue of spiritual fervency is mentioned as the issue at stake. In verse 19 the solution the Laodicean’s problem is to be zealous and repent. The idea of ineffectiveness of their works is not in view.

And second, even though the metaphorical usage is less common, it is a valid usage (Matt. 24:12; Acts 18:25; Rom. 12:11) and seems to best fit the context here. Christ speaks of the people as being lukewarm, instead of hot or cold. It is not a mistake to see a reference here to the various water supplies in the region. But it is unnecessary to conclude that the temperature of the water cannot be likened to one’s spiritual fervor.

Thus, the condition of the Laodicean church that warranted such a rebuke is, in a word, complacency.

The Warning

Christ describes the works of the Laodiceans as indicative of their spiritual fervor. They are neither hot nor cold, but merely lukewarm. The term for “lukewarm” is used only once in Scripture and refers to tepid water. In light of the geographical situation, it is easy to see how it is used in this context. The hot water of Hierapolis was good for medicinal purposes, and the cold water of Colossae was good for drinking. But the water supply of Laodicea, “was derived from an artificial pipeline bringing water which was literally lukewarm and so impure as to have an emetic effect.” [42]

Christ warns the Laodicean church that their behavior is as nauseating as their water-supply. He is about to vomit them from His mouth, just as one might do after tasting Laodicean water. He has not done so yet, and this letter is written with the hopes of curing their tepidness. [43]

Most commentators interpret lukewarm people as professing believers who are not saved. Barclay writes, “The very phrase ‘a lukewarm Christian’ is a contradiction in terms, for a lukewarm Christian has no claim to be called a Christian at all.” [44] Walvoord holds that lukewarmness refers to:

those who have manifested some interest in the things of God. They may be professing Christians who attend church but have fallen far short of a true testimony for Christ and whose attitude and actions raise questions concerning the reality of their spiritual life. They have been touched by the gospel, but it is not clear whether they really belong to Christ. [45]

Epp agrees that “this describes those who have given a partial acceptance to the claims of the gospel.” [46]

This lifestyle is not exclusively the problem of the Laodiceans. It is a common problem, especially today. Our churches have many professing believers in them who nauseate the Lord. Stott drives this home:

The Laodicean church was a halfhearted church. Perhaps none of the seven letters is more appropriate to the twentieth-century church than this. It describes vividly the respectable, sentimental, nominal, skin-deep religiosity which is so widespread among us today. Our Christianity is flabby and anaemic. We appear to have taken a lukewarm bath of religion. [47]

Some commentators see the vomiting out of the lukewarm people to be prophetic of the rejection of unbelievers at the rapture. McClure and McCarrell are representative of this position. The true Church is caught away, and the false Church that is left enters the tribulation. This view is not supported by the context, however. There is nothing in the letter to indicate that the vomiting is eschatological.

Their Problem

Even worse than their indifference was their ignorance of their real condition. Christ accuses them of feeling rich and in need of nothing (3:17). Their prosperity had led them to a state of ease in which God was not needed. Perhaps they even interpreted their material wealth as a blessing from God. They were oblivious to their true spiritual condition.

Ironically, Christ describes their depravity in terms of the very industries that brought them security. Beasley-Murray has captured this insight eloquently:

With respect to the true riches they are mere beggars. Despite their overflowing banks they are poor; despite their physicians and medicaments they are blind; despite their clothing factories, they are naked. They are in truth wretched and pitiable. [48]

The spiritual destitution of the Laodiceans is described as leaving them in a wretched state, as if their assets had been destroyed. Christ has exposed their sham so that they are to be pitied. This kind of terminology fits unbelievers better than backslidden believers. “‘Lukewarmness,’ then, does not refer to the laxity of Christians but the condition of not really knowing Christ as Savior and Lord and thus being useless to him.”49 In a word, their problem is self-reliance.

His Advice

The remedy for their destitute state is given as counsel from the Lord (3:18). It may seem strange that the Lord would advise rather than command, but He may be expressing gentleness and emphasizing that the choice is up to the Laodiceans. There are three items they should buy to solve each of their three inadequacies. They should buy gold refined by fire to become rich. They should buy white garments to clothe themselves. And they should buy eye salve in order to see.

This is humbling advice. They took pride in their local industries. They were wealthy from the banking enterprises. They were well dressed in their black wool clothing. And they were famous for their eye salve. Yet Christ says that in spite of these physical assets, they are spiritually bankrupt. They have nothing that has value spiritually. They must buy from Him.

The terminology for “buying” is well chosen. The Laodiceans had sharp commercial instincts, and they knew that someone must pay for everything, even though it may be offered for free.50 Carson explains this irony:

How can a church which Jesus himself has just analyzed to be bankrupt buy anything? In truth, it cannot--except in the sense that the Jews of old were encouraged by Jehovah to “buy” wine and milk without money and without price (Isa. 55:1). The Laodicean believers cannot buy the Lord’s proffered gifts with their wealth; but because the Lord has purchased their redemption for them with his own blood, they can lay hold of the riches he proffers. The price has been paid; the “buying” has been done for them, and this ironical expression forces them to recognize this most basic of Christian truths. [51]

Just as the expression “poor, blind, and naked” describes the spiritual state of an unbeliever, so gold, white garments, and sight describe the believer. “Salvation is gold in that it removes our poverty, white robes in that it covers our nakedness, and eye salve in that it gives us sight and knowledge.” [52]

His Command

Christ’s polite advice turns to a command in this verse (3:19). Christ commands the Laodiceans to be zealous and repent. This verse is a key to understanding the Laodicean problem of lukewarmness. Contextually lukewarmness must be interpreted as lack of zeal, and refusal to repent. “He spits out those he does not love and ‘rebukes’ and disciplines those who hear his voice. The difference between the expelled and the disciplined lies in their response.” [53] The purpose of this letter is to call attention to their depravity and motivate them to repent. Grammatically, the repentance will come in one decisive act, but the zeal should become a habitual part of their lives. In this process Christ’s love is ever present to reprove and discipline (Prov. 3:11–12).

His Invitation

Immediately following His command to be zealous and repent, we find Christ standing at a door, asking to be let in, so that He can fellowship with those inside (3:20). “The thought is overwhelming that the everlasting King comes from his throne to ask a beggar to receive him.” [54] There are three major interpretive problems that must be solved in order to understand this verse properly. First, we must establish whether the invitation for fellowship is extended to an individual or the church as a whole. Second, we must determine whether the request for entrance is made of an unbeliever, or a backslidden believer. And third, we need to know whether the fellowship is immediate or eschatological.

The best answer to the first question is that the invitation is extended first to the church as a whole, and then to individuals within the church. As Kelshaw has said,

The arms outstretched, inviting restoration, are firstly toward a whole Christian community. However, a church is made up of individual people. So this invitation is a call to every member to respond, that the promise of renewal might come to the whole company. [55]

Since each of the seven letters is addressed to a local church, we should first see this invitation as designed to encourage the Laodicean church to open up and seek warm fellowship with Christ. But because any command to a church is carried out by the obedience of individual believers, the invitation is personalized. Christ promises that if anyone hears His voice and opens the door, He will come in to him and will dine with him. The Laodiceans needed this kind of personal appeal because the church as a whole was self-complacent. The final verse of the chapter confirms this explanation. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (3:22).

The second question asks whether Christ’s request is made of unbelievers or backslidden believers. The answer is to be found in the context. The entire letter is an expression of Christ’s dissatisfaction with the spiritual state of the Laodicean church and His desire to restore proper fellowship with it. The picture He is using here of eating an evening meal together speaks of intimate fellowship between the closest of friends. [56] “A shared meal in the ancient Jewish world had far more significance than it has today. It was a symbol of affection, of confidence, of intimacy.” [57] So, in light of the picture of a shared meal, and in comparison with the purpose of the letter as a whole, we may conclude that the purpose of the invitation is to establish fellowship with the Laodicean church as a whole. Granted, this takes place as individuals yield control to Him, but the issue of personal salvation is not in view. It is true that there are a number of unbelievers within the Laodicean church. And it is true that the terminology used to describe those who are lukewarm better fits unbelievers than it does believers. But the issue in this verse is fellowship with the church as a whole, and not the personal salvation of individuals within the congregation. In order to have proper fellowship with the church as a whole, those who are merely professing believers must come to faith in Him, and those who are backslidden, must renew their fellowship. The terminology of verse 17 can possibly be used of believers in some contexts (2 Pet. 1:9). Thus, we may conclude that 3:20 refers to the church as a whole, including both professing believers and true believers. In order for the intended fellowship to take place, the nominal believers must be saved and the backslidden believers must return to Him.

The third question asks whether this fellowship Christ seeks with the church will be realized immediately upon its repentance, or whether it speaks prophetically of the imminent return of the Lord. Ladd points out the difficulty in making a quick decision:

It is true that the metaphor of Christ standing at the door is a familiar eschatological concept (Mark 13:29; Matt. 24:33; Luke 12:36; Jas. 5:9). It is also true that the idea of a messianic banquet is often used as a symbol of fellowship in the Kingdom of God (Luke 14:15; 22:29ff.; Matt. 8:11; 22:1–4; 26:29; Rev. 19:9). [58]

Swete, Beckwith and Moffatt are representative of those who would interpret this verse eschatologically. They would connect it with the promise to the overcomer in the next verse which is certainly eschatological. Thus, to Swete the opening of the door is the joyful response of the Church to the last call. [59]

Yet the context in 3:20 is different from Christ’s return. Here Christ is summoning the members of a complacent church to repent and to have fellowship with Him. That fellowship takes place immediately upon their repentance. That does not mean, however, that no symbolism is appropriate. Stott summarizes the multiple symbolism when he writes:

To eat bread and drink wine is but a physical representation of the spiritual feast with Christ and on Christ which His people are privileged continuously to enjoy. To kneel at His table in a church sets forth publicly our private supping with Him in our hearts. And both the inward feast and the sacramental supper are a foretaste of that heavenly banquet which in the Book of Revelation is called “the marriage supper of the Lamb.” [60]

His Promise

The letter ends with a tremendous promise of reward. Those who are zealous and repent will be labeled overcomers, and will be granted the privilege of sitting down with Christ on His throne (3:21). “Although the Saviour’s sternest rebukes and condemnation are directed toward Laodicea, so also does He reserve for her the most glorious and precious promises given to any of the seven churches.” [61] Just as Christ was declared the victor over death by His resurrection and ascension to sit at the right hand of the Father, so believers follow Christ in victory to join Him on His throne and reign with Him. “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him” (2 Tim. 2:12). There is no greater reward or higher dignity than to reign with Christ.

Interestingly, John had earlier ambitiously asked to sit next to Jesus in glory someday (Mark 10:37). Now the Lord is sending a message through John that all overcomers, that is all true believers, will not merely have a throne next to Christ, but will actually share Christ’s throne! What a tremendous promise!

The Epilogue

The final verse of the letter contains the familiar admonition to listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches (3:22). How easy it would be to allow these words of rebuke and instruction to pass one by. How easy it would be to fall into the same complacency and self-reliance that plagued the Laodicean church. If we have learned anything from this letter, it is that we must not be smug and complacent, but rather be zealous, evidencing fruit worthy of repentance. Our own assets are worthless before Christ. We must obtain all our spiritual assets from Him.

Notes

1. Ken Daughters is a faculty member at Emmaus Bible College
2. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NIC (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), 122.
3. R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), 2:93.
4. G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, NCC (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 103.
5. W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963 [1904]), 414–15.
6. J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1975), 419.
7. Mounce, 122.
8. W. J. McClure, The Seven Churches of Asia (Kilmarnock, Scotland: John Ritchie, n. d.), 111. See also William McCarrell, Christ’s Seven Letters to His Church (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1936), and Watchman Nee, The Orthodoxy of the Church (Los Angeles: Stream, 1970).
9. Ramsay, 415.
10. D. A. Carson, “The Church in an Affluent Society (Rev. 3:14–22),” The Banner of Truth, 185 (February 1979): 17.
11. Mounce, 123.
12. Carson, 17.
13. Colin J. Hemer, “Unto the Angels of the Churches: Philadelphia and Laodicea,” Buried History, 11, No. 4 (December 1975): 177.
14. Hemer, “Laodicea,” 175
15. Hemer, “Laodicea,” 182–83.
16. Sherman E. Johnson, “Laodicea and its Neighbors,” The Biblical Archaeologist, 13, No. 1 (February 1950): 10.
17. Ramsay, 415.
18. M. J. S. Rudwick and E. M. B. Green, “The Laodicean Lukewarmness,” The Expository Times, 59, No. 6 (March 1958): 177.
19. Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967 [1919]), 486.
20. Ramsay, 416.
21. Mounce, 123.
22. Charles,93.
23. Ramsay, 419.
24. Beasley-Murray, 103.
25. E. M. Blaiklock, The Seven Churches (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, n.d.), 75.
26. Mounce, 124.
27. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943),152.
28. John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), 135.
29. Lou H. Silberman, “Farewell to ὁ Αμήν,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 82 (June 1963): 213-15.
30. Ford, 418.
31. Beckwith, 488.
32. A view refuted by Donald Grey Barnhouse, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), 81.
33. Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977 [1911]), 59.
34. Colin J. Hemer, “Cold, Hot, Lukewarm,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. by Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975) 1:319.
35. Swete, 60.
36. Beasley-Murray, 105.
37. Barnhouse, 81.
38. Carson, 18.
39. Rudwick and Green, 176.
40. Hemer, “Cold, Hot, Lukewarm,” 319.
41. Rudwick and Green, 177–78
42. Hemer, “Cold, Hot, Lukewarm,” 318.
43. Lenski, 155.
44. William Barclay, Letters to the Seven Churches (London: SCM, 1957), 117.
45. John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 92.
46. Theodore H. Epp, Christ Speaks to the Church (Lincoln, Neb.: Back to the Bible, 1960), 118.
47. John R. W. Stott, What Christ Thinks of the Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958), 116.
48. Beasley-Murray, 106.
49. Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981) 12:458.
50. G. A. Hadjiantoniou, The Postman of Patmos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), 128.
51. Carson, 19.
52. Lenski, 159.
53. Johnson, 459.
54. Lenski, 159.
55. Terence Kelshaw, Send this Message to my Church (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), 174.
56. Johnson, 459.
57. George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), 68.
58. Ladd, 67.
59. Swete, 63.
60. Stott, 124.
61. Orley Berg, “Laodicea--The Self-satisfied Church,” Ministry, 52, No. 3 (March 1979): 17.