Bible Study Revelation 3:18

[stovebolts]

What do you guys think?

http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view. ... hapter=003

Verse 18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become rich; and white garments, that thou may est clothe thyself, and that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest; and eye-salve to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see.

It is evident that the lack of the Laodiceans was precisely in those areas where they fancied they were the strongest. The allusion to Laodicean wealth, their garment industry, and their "Phrygian eye-salve" is evident.

Buy of me gold refined by fire ...
This is a metaphor of true fidelity in Christ Jesus, as suggested by 1 Pet. 1:7; but the expression, "Buy of me" is particularly interesting. "the of me is emphatic," F67 indicating that the true wealth is procurable only from the Son of God. Neither the banks of Laodicea nor the gold mines of Pangaeus can supply the blessed "riches in Christ" without which all mankind is miserable and poor and blind and naked. Furthermore, the very fact of a purchase being required in this command raises the question of what shall be tendered in order to receive the gold refined by fire? Lenski quoted Isa. 55:1 in this context:



Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1).
Lenski's comment on this is: "Buy for nothing! This is the strange wonderful gospel buying." F68 With due deference, how ever, to the respected Lenski, the riches in Christ are not avail able "for nothing," but without money, there being a world of difference in the two propositions. The very thing wrong at Laodicea was that they were proposing to enjoy true riches of Christ for nothing. The same is true of a great deal of the current religious world around us today. Among the things that "in a sense" must be exchanged for the true riches are an obedient faith in Jesus Christ. However, it is only "in a sense" that such may be called "buying." There is no quid pro quo that may be tendered in order to receive salvation; and it was probably this that Lenski intended.

And white garments that thou mayest be clothed ...
Like the buying, above, this represents something which to some degree, at least, must be provided by the wearer, Christ, of course, being the only source. The apostles commanded that one should keep himself "unspotted from the world" (James 1:27). White garments of righteousness are supplied by the Lord to the baptized believer; but there is no promise of any such thing to the believer or unbeliever who will not be baptized. Thus, people are here commanded to "buy" white garments.

And eye-salve to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see ...
This demanded purchase, like the others, may not be had for money; but that does not mean that it is available upon any other terms than the one laid down in Scripture. "The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" (Psalms 19:8). The only eye-salve, therefore, that will do spiritual blind ness any good is the word of the Lord; and it was precisely this that the Laodiceans needed. How could they "buy it"? Through study and attention given to the word of God. Is this "for nothing"? Indeed no; but it is without money.

 

[Bick]

Rev. 3:18

Stovebolts, what comments are you interested in?

To critique Coffman's interpretation of this passage?

To give my own understanding that all of Revelation is future?

Bick

 

[JM]

Re: Rev. 3:18

Stovebolts, what comments are you interested in?

To critique Coffman's interpretation of this passage?

To give my own understanding that all of Revelation is future?

Bick

Some believe all of Rev is future, it being written to believing Jews during the end time after the rapture. If you're interested I'll put a post together for you, if not I won't.

 

[Bick]

Rev. 3:18

Thanks for you reply, JM. I you understand Revelation is all in the future, as I do, then there is no use taking time here to discuss it.

God bless, Bick

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Bick,
Actually, I was just kind of wondering how you viewed this particular piece of scripture.
That's all, nothing more, nothing less. (I like to hear other peoples interpertations and I like to read whenever I can :D )

Thanks!

 

[Collier]

Hey Stove! Long time no talk. I have always found Coffman's commentaries to be Biblically sound. However, in dealing with the book of Revelation, it depends upon one's view of when it was written and the purpose of it's writing. Like some have already said they think the things in the book are still future, some think most has been fulfilled, some think all fulfilled (you get the picture). So when it comes to commentaries dealing with Revelation, I don't give them much thought because it very subjective to the writers preconceived ideas.I will say again that I have found Coffman to be very sound (take that for what it is worth).

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Collier :D

It's funny, I've said it a few times and I'll say it again. I stay away from Revelation and Daniel for just the reasons you stated. Matter of fact, the only verse I have highlighted in Revelation is 3:20 and that's only because I feel it pertains to the Lord's supper.


Anyway, I really liked how Coffman put this commentary together and was looking for some feedback (short and sweet) just to see how it weighed.

BTW, what was the last thread we conversed in? It's been awhile hasn't it?

Take care,
Jeff

 

[Collier]

Yea! It has been a while and I don't remember what thread it would have been. It has been some time since I have really spent anytime posting on this forum. Good to talk to ya though. Take care.