What does this mean?

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To Reuben J:

First off, thank you for your answers, were are more well thought out and thoughtful than most of what I am accustomed to from some here. Now, on to the “nitty gritty”…

I think we can concede that discussion regarding Christ’s call to unbelievers is no longer a point of contention as we both agree that this passage is not speaking of unbelievers. In which case, we can probably say we were “violently in agreement” in our previous posts.

I think the focal point here is the time and place of Revelation 3:20. I think, however, you are not entirely wrong in saying that this passage could be present tense (I certainly wouldn’t call you a “heretic” for thinking so ), although I suppose the main focus I have is on the passages around it. As you said, Revelation 3:21 is in the future tense, and in fact the past passages are likewise in future tense. Now I recognize one might say that since it is in present tense, it is speaking of the reaction of Christ to the repentance of the Laodiceans, which He has just given them and is expecting them to act upon. I think what drives me back to the end times is that what Christ says the outcome will be is something that can only happen at the end times. Christ cannot come in and dine with us just yet, any more than these people can immediately receive the gold refined by fire nor the eye salve (v. 18) which Christ promises to give them in the previous chapters. In this sense I compare it to the masters parables found throughout the gospels.

But the main focus of my first post was to respond mostly to the idea by many that Revelation 3:20 means everyone (unbelievers included), which both you and I agree on it does not.

 

[Reuben_J]

To Reuben J:

First off, thank you for your answers, were are more well thought out and thoughtful than most of what I am accustomed to from some here. Now, on to the “nitty gritty”…

I think we can concede that discussion regarding Christ’s call to unbelievers is no longer a point of contention as we both agree that this passage is not speaking of unbelievers. In which case, we can probably say we were “violently in agreement” in our previous posts.

I think the focal point here is the time and place of Revelation 3:20. I think, however, you are not entirely wrong in saying that this passage could be present tense (I certainly wouldn’t call you a “heretic” for thinking so ), although I suppose the main focus I have is on the passages around it. As you said, Revelation 3:21 is in the future tense, and in fact the past passages are likewise in future tense. Now I recognize one might say that since it is in present tense, it is speaking of the reaction of Christ to the repentance of the Laodiceans, which He has just given them and is expecting them to act upon. I think what drives me back to the end times is that what Christ says the outcome will be is something that can only happen at the end times. Christ cannot come in and dine with us just yet, any more than these people can immediately receive the gold refined by fire nor the eye salve (v. 18) which Christ promises to give them in the previous chapters. In this sense I compare it to the masters parables found throughout the gospels.

But the main focus of my first post was to respond mostly to the idea by many that Revelation 3:20 means everyone (unbelievers included), which both you and I agree on it does not.

Byzantine,

While we agree for the most part on this (and how pleasant it is) I will be unable to concede about the end time part as therein lies our stand theologically in our respective belief.

As an attempt to beat this subject into submission I will again insert here my further thought regarding v20 & v21.

**Jesus coming in through our door (v. 20) **and sitting with Jesus on his throne (v.21).

Our door to our home (heart) is often associated with the earthly and human while Jesus throne is heavenly. Thus the step to determine where is this door (that is to be opened by us for Jesus to come in) is to ask the question: where is it? We can exclude heaven because it belongs to the Father, where there are many rooms which have been prepared for us (Jn 14:2). So logically, the door is here, on earth. Thus if Jesus is to enter our door, logically it will be on earth.

If we take this route to the understanding of this verse it will be consistent with Jesus coming to earth and become flesh and be among us. Even though we are not yet in heaven we are promised that we can have feast together with him on the same table (now it is usually understood as the Eucharist). So it is not out of line to consider that when we open the door as in v.20 and when Jesus comes in, it is still on this earth.

Sitting on the throne of God (v.21) may very well be in heaven as God is of the heavenly nature. However, in the New Covenant even that throne can be brought down to earth – like he takes his throne in our midst, in our worship. The curtain of the Temple had been broken into two to break the barrier between God and man, so that even the throne of God is not exclusively in heaven now but be anywhere where he is pleased among the people whom he has called into his very own.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Just out of curiosity, how are you concluding that the home in v. 20 is the heart?

EDIT: That’s not a baited question, btw, just trying to further understand your point.

 

[Reuben_J]

Just out of curiosity, how are you concluding that the home in v. 20 is the heart?

EDIT: That’s not a baited question, btw, just trying to further understand your point.

OK I’ll bite. Anyway.

Surely that home is not in 36, Avenue Park.

Surely Jesus will come in spiritually unless you are suggesting that he will come in person as in Thomas’ case - ‘there you are, my Lord and my God’ and then proceeded to touch his hands (and feet and his side).

If the opening of the door is not physical (i.e. into our houses) then how else Jesus can enter in?

I am not the type who will mess with Revelation though many Christians attempt to do it. Being apocalyptic there is no sure way that you are guaranteed the correct understanding of the verses in this book. Thus it must be understood in conjunction what has been revealed and known before it in the Bible.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Ha ha, no, of course I wouldn’t argue that the home in v. 20 is a literal place. Believe me I understand the passage to be in a spiritual context. I guess the reason I ask is to discern whether or not the home is literally the heart of a person (in which case the present tense argument would make sense) or whether it is talking about a general spiritual condition regarding salvation which is then extended into v. 21 (in which case the future tense argument would make sense).

But you know, in hindsight, I’m looking back on our last few posts and wondering where the real disagreements are. We seem to both agree on the target audience of v. 20, only the time and place of it, but in the end it seems we both understand what it implies. Again, it’s not that much of a dividing issue for me. Therefore, as Charles Simeon said to John Wesley: “Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again.”

Oh and believe me, I don’t care much for people who try to find dozens of meanings (most of them forcefully relevant) within Revelation, especially Dispensationalists such as Jack van Impe and the like. Few people seem to realize that few early theologians touched the book, and those that did later on (Matthew Henry, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, etc.) saw it within a mostly historically allegorical context (those commentaries are quite interesting to read, by the way).

 

[Reuben_J]

Ha ha, no, of course I wouldn’t argue that the home in v. 20 is a literal place. Believe me I understand the passage to be in a spiritual context. I guess the reason I ask is to discern whether or not the home is literally the heart of a person (in which case the present tense argument would make sense) or whether it is talking about a general spiritual condition regarding salvation which is then extended into v. 21 (in which case the future tense argument would make sense).

But you know, in hindsight, I’m looking back on our last few posts and wondering where the real disagreements are. We seem to both agree on the target audience of v. 20, only the time and place of it, but in the end it seems we both understand what it implies. Again, it’s not that much of a dividing issue for me. Therefore, as Charles Simeon said to John Wesley: “Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again.”

Oh and believe me, I don’t care much for people who try to find dozens of meanings (most of them forcefully relevant) within Revelation, especially Dispensationalists such as Jack van Impe and the like. Few people seem to realize that few early theologians touched the book, and those that did later on (Matthew Henry, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, etc.) saw it within a mostly historically allegorical context (those commentaries are quite interesting to read, by the way).

I can only try to figure out what you actually mean on this post. I will not pretend that we agree on all aspects on the understanding of the passage. Our discussion corroborates to that.

As a Catholic, I am wary of any statement that lead to spell out what it will be on the last day. Unless explicitly stated anything else will be only postulation at best.

In the first few posts you came out with some statements as if they were absolute facts. One can do that if one preaches to a listening audience; like they are those of our own kind. Not here though and we can expect such statements to be challenged. Your quoting prominent figures do not make them agreeable bearing in mind that with them do we disagree, though of course they can reinforce your argument rather than it is merely coming out from just you.

I have said what I wanted to say. It’s important, I believe to make a stand on our understanding respectively on the interpretation of biblical verses as these are reflection and therefore foundation to our belief.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

My first few posts (at least my very first post) was mostly aimed at those who use this verse out of context and apply it to the idea of a libertarian free will for people who don’t believe, which the verse is not talking about, the latter-most point both you and I agree on. If you want to say “Christ knocks on the door of our hearts” (even unbelievers), then fine, go ahead and do so, but don’t use Revelation 3:20 as your proof text for it, because it will be a completely erroneous citation. I simply quoted Daniel Wallace to further illustrate that (I’m certain he knows more about the NT Greek than you and I, and, though I don’t believe him to be infallible, if you think him wrong be prepared to demonstrate why).

 

[Reuben_J]

I think I have made it clear - my mind on this and have given the reason of why I said so. I do not believe one can use Revelation to prove text anything and it should always be used in conjunction with other information in the Bible. Do not be legalistic with this book. In the light of this, Jesus can call on unbelievers as I have explained earlier and they decide on whether to respond or not. This certainly involves free will and especially so in v20. When the word ‘if’ is used, a choice is prescribed. I qualify this, legalistically speaking v20 speaks about the Christians of Laodicea but I believe we can use the thrust of this passage on unbelievers as well.

I do not say I am better than Biblical scholars; in fact I am not even Biblically trained. But I can always disagree to an assertion that does not subscribe to my belief.

 

[Reuben_J]

If you want to say “Christ knocks on the door of our hearts” (even unbelievers), then fine, go ahead and do so, but don’t use Revelation 3:20 as your proof text for it, because it will be a completely erroneous citation

Rev 3:20 is directed at the Christians of Laodicea but its message can be applied to all – believers and non-believers alike. Legalistically speaking, yes, when John received this vision in the island of Patmos, the message was referring to the people of Laodicea.

If now you say it is only meant for believers, then why stops there? Why not say it’s only for the Christians of Laodicea and so rendering it useless and irrelevant for us today.

In fact the Laodiceans at that time were no better than the unbelievers by the way they lived, who by then were steeped in the materialism of the day.

More importantly, if this passage is of any relevance to us it is pertinent to look at the unbelievers who ‘opened’ themselves to Jesus in the Gospels. Levi and Zacchaeus the tax collectors and Saul the persecutor in Acts – all unbelievers. But Jesus came to them or passed them by, and they received him, and what happened? He came to their house and dined with them; as for Saul it was history, he was spiritually transformed from a persecutor of Jesus to one of the most important apostles.

When we say that v.20 can apply to the unbelievers, we have to see it in the whole context of the Bible.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

When we say that v. 20 doesn’t refer to unbelievers, it’s because we allow verses to speak within the context of which they are used. As it stands, Revelation 3:20 is only speaking about believers and the need to repent in the face of criticism from the Lord Himself. It isn’t directed at unbelievers in any way, shape or form. To branch it out would be eisegesis at best and distortion of the original context at worst.

I’ve talked to many Muslims on this forum who did this very thing. You will give them passages where Christ states a specific authority that is His, then they’ll jump to a completely unrelated passage where Christ states that another specific authority is given to Him by the Father, and use those one or two verses to try to fight against the deity of Christ. If you try to show that they are playing with the verses, the too would argue that they are only trying to “see it in the whole context of the Bible.” Such tactics should not be used, whether it be for good or bad. We wouldn’t use a person’s quote out of context; neither should we use the word of God out of context.

 

[Reuben_J]

Here is my summary on what I believe it to be on Rev3:20.

It is meant for Christians of today and not end time/when Jesus returns.

The calling of Jesus to open the door needs a personal response. That response requires decision. The decision involves free will on the person who responds. The respond can be a yes or no but that’s one’s response nevertheless. There is no predestination here as the response rests solely on the person to decide.

The opening of the door to one’s heart invariably involves surrendering and acquiescing to what Jesus wants of us. In Rev 3, it was specific as in v. 15-19.

As a Biblical message this can speak to anybody - for Jesus’ invitation is not limited only to those who already believed but to all; because to all that Jesus came. I have no qualm preaching this to ‘unbelievers’ and saying to them, ‘right now Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart. If you listen and want to open that door, he will come in’. In other word if you accept Jesus, he will come to you.

There are many ways, obviously, how we want to use the whole passage and how we understand it. The above just happen to how I would understand it.

My method of using and understanding the Bible is as prescribed in Lectio Divina as espoused by the late John Paul II. Roughly it is based on the following premise:

• What does the Bible (verses) says?
• What does it says today?
• What does it says to you?
• What is your response?

I do not use the Bible exclusively for academic purpose and unbelieving theologians have no use for me.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I do not use the Bible exclusively for academic purpose and unbelieving theologians have no use for me.

I feel the same way.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

When we say that v. 20 doesn’t refer to unbelievers, it’s because we allow verses to speak within the context of which they are used. As it stands, Revelation 3:20 is only speaking about believers and the need to repent in the face of criticism from the Lord Himself. It isn’t directed at unbelievers in any way, shape or form. To branch it out would be eisegesis at best and distortion of the original context at worst.

I’ve talked to many Muslims on this forum who did this very thing. You will give them passages where Christ states a specific authority that is His, then they’ll jump to a completely unrelated passage where Christ states that another specific authority is given to Him by the Father, and use those one or two verses to try to fight against the deity of Christ. If you try to show that they are playing with the verses, the too would argue that they are only trying to “see it in the whole context of the Bible.” Such tactics should not be used, whether it be for good or bad. We wouldn’t use a person’s quote out of context; neither should we use the word of God out of context.

To me this is a no brainer

20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Jesus stands at the door, obviously the door to our heart, of **any man **and knocks. This is not speaking exclusively to believers, but to any man. This would be comparable to whosoever in Jn. 3:16

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that **whosoever **believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The phrase “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” would be pretty much the same as saying “if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him” These vs. are a call to the whole world to believe, open the door. Allow Jesus into our hearts in faith.

21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Jesus overcame the temptations of Satan and we can do the same. Not by any power of our own, but by His power, because we have made Him Lord of our hearts in faith.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To me this is a no brainer

20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Jesus stands at the door, obviously the door to our heart, of **any man **and knocks. This is not speaking exclusively to believers, but to any man.

That’s taking one phrase and stretching it out beyond the context of what it means. It’s like taking our Lord’s statement “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:14) and stating: “Aha! See? He says you can ask for anything in His name! So I’m going to pray to rob a bank, and Christ will make it happen!” That would be nonsensical, but that’s exactly what happens when you take a phrase and ignore the context in which it is said.

Look at the chapter entire. Look at this section. Look at how it begins and ends. Christ isn’t talking about everyone in the whole world; He’s talking about those in Laodicea.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

That’s taking one phrase and stretching it out beyond the context of what it means. It’s like taking our Lord’s statement “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:14) and stating: “Aha! See? He says you can ask for anything in His name! So I’m going to pray to rob a bank, and Christ will make it happen!” That would be nonsensical, but that’s exactly what happens when you take a phrase and ignore the context in which it is said.

Look at the chapter entire. Look at this section. Look at how it begins and ends. Christ isn’t talking about everyone in the whole world; He’s talking about those in Laodicea.

So you are saying that because this particular part of Revelation is addressed to the Laodiceans it has no relevance for us today. Then you must be saying that the parts addressed to the other churches are not for us either. And in fact if that is true these specific churches are long gone. So what reason would Jesus have for including them in the bible. That just doesn’t make sense. By extension, Paul wrote 13 epistles four were to individuals nine were to churches. Are you saying that these epistles have no relevance to us today because they weren’t written to us specifically. If this is all true, there is no reason for the intire New Testament.

 

[StTommyMore]

It is an invitation to the Eucharist

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

So you are saying that because this particular part of Revelation is addressed to the Laodiceans it has no relevance for us today. Then you must be saying that the parts addressed to the other churches are not for us either. And in fact if that is true these specific churches are long gone. So what reason would Jesus have for including them in the bible. That just doesn’t make sense. By extension, Paul wrote 13 epistles four were to individuals nine were to churches. Are you saying that these epistles have no relevance to us today because they weren’t written to us specifically. If this is all true, there is no reason for the intire New Testament.

That’s a straw man. I wasn’t saying that every book of scripture are only addressed to the people to which they were directly written. I was arguing that to say it means any man - even unbelievers when it is only addressed to believers in the church who are asked to act like real believers - is to extend the context beyond what it was intended for.

I cited a passage as an example, but let me use another scripture for example:

“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” [Matthew 18:20; ESV]

A lot of people take this verse and branch it out from it’s context. They use it for bible studies or church groups, saying, “Aha! See! It says where two or three are gathered in my name, He’s there among them!” However, what the verse refers to is church discipline regarding a brother who sins against another (v. 15-20). My point is that Rev 3:20 simply has to be treated with equal regard. As I said earlier, you wouldn’t treat something a person says so loosely, so we shouldn’t treat the word of God so loosely.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

That’s a straw man. I wasn’t saying that every book of scripture are only addressed to the people to which they were directly written. I was arguing that to say it means any man - even unbelievers when it is only addressed to believers in the church who are asked to act like real believers - is to extend the context beyond what it was intended for.

You make the assertion that this v. is “only addressed to believers in the church” Well the Laodicean church has not been in existance for a very long time, so what would be the point. Also, if you can make this assertion about this church, what’s to stop me, by the same logic, to say that every epistle addressed to other people or churches has no relevance for us today? Also you say “I was arguing that to say it means any man - even unbelievers when it is only addressed to believers”
I wasn’t saying it means any man. That’s what it says.

20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if **any man **hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

I cited a passage as an example, but let me use another scripture for example:

“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” [Matthew 18:20; ESV]

A lot of people take this verse and branch it out from it’s context. They use it for bible studies or church groups, saying, “Aha! See! It says where two or three are gathered in my name, He’s there among them!” However, what the verse refers to is church discipline regarding a brother who sins against another (v. 15-20). My point is that Rev 3:20 simply has to be treated with equal regard. As I said earlier, you wouldn’t treat something a person says so loosely, so we shouldn’t treat the word of God so loosely.

So you’re saying this v. doesn’t mean what it say, it means what you say it means.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Richard Kastner,

I think you either did not fully grasp my point or did not read it fully to comprehend it. My point was that we need to respect whose Christ audience was when He made those statements, just as we respect that Christ was either talking to the Pharisees, His disciples, or general multitudes in the gospels. The fact is, if you study the entire passage, it’s addressed to the church in Laodicea. Christ’s audience are believers. You again fall back on, “But the passage says any man!” I’ve already addressed this, using both John 14:14 and Matthew 18:20 as examples where the context can be completely lost if you don’t understand the meaning behind what is spoken. According to your very own logic, then, when Christ says “ask me anything in my name” in John 14:14, then you can rightfully argue for robbing a bank or forcing a woman to marry against her will, and so long as it’s asked for in Christ’s name, Christ will make it happen.

Let me present a modern example. I’ve grown up on military bases most my life, and I know there are certain places on the base where you need a specific ID to get in. Let’s say that inside this building is a food court. I manage to get a job there and am granted one of those ID’s. Worried if I can’t eat at the food court, I ask and am told, “Oh yeah, anyone can eat at the food court.” I share this with someone outside the building who doesn’t have an ID. He walks up to the guard at the front door and, when he’s rejected, angrily says, “I wanna eat at the food court, and my friend said anyone can eat at the food court!!” Of course, it doesn’t meant literally anyone in the whole wide world - the person meant anyone inside the building who had already gotten in with the ID. That was the full context. Yet based on what you are arguing with Rev 3:20, you would argue that the person has every right to go in and eat at that food court, because he heard “anyone.”

This is what I meant when I said that we wouldn’t play such games with what a person says to us, so we shouldn’t treat this with our Lord’s words. Your statement, therefore, that I’m saying “this v. doesn’t mean what it say, it means what I say it means,” is simply another straw man. I’m letting the text define its own context. I’m not trying to insert anything into the context other than that which has already been supplied to us. And the context tells us that this statement was said to a church and is asking them to repent and follow the commands of Christ and be true Christians.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard Kastner,

I think you either did not fully grasp my point or did not read it fully to comprehend it. My point was that we need to respect whose Christ audience was when He made those statements, just as we respect that Christ was either talking to the Pharisees, His disciples, or general multitudes in the gospels. The fact is, if you study the entire passage, it’s addressed to the church in Laodicea. Christ’s audience are believers. You again fall back on, “But the passage says any man!” I’ve already addressed this, using both John 14:14 and Matthew 18:20 as examples where the context can be completely lost if you don’t understand the meaning behind what is spoken. According to your very own logic, then, when Christ says “ask me anything in my name” in John 14:14, then you can rightfully argue for robbing a bank or forcing a woman to marry against her will, and so long as it’s asked for in Christ’s name, Christ will make it happen.

Your two scenarios here are not quite the same. In Jn. 14:14 Jesus is obviously talking to believers, because unbelieveres probably would not be asking things of Jesus in the first place and if they are true believers in Christ they certainly would not be asking for the things that you propose. What I believe that Christ was talking about in Jn. 14:14 is brought out more fully in Jn. 6

35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

When a man/woman comes to Jesus and asks Him for eternal life and he does this with a broken and contrite heart. The Lord will come in to him and dine with him. After this very important first step the repentant sinner who has come to Jesus in faith can now ask anything he wants of Jesus. It is assumned that if the person is truely one of Christs, the things asked will be according to His will.

This is what I meant when I said that we wouldn’t play such games with what a person says to us, so we shouldn’t treat this with our Lord’s words. Your statement, therefore, that I’m saying “this v. doesn’t mean what it say, it means what I say it means,” is simply another straw man.

Well BW first of all a straw man would be me setting up a bogus scenario, something you never said, and then tearing that scenario down as if I were tearing down something that you actually said. This is not the case here. I’m simply disagreeing with your evaluation of Rev. 3:20

I’m letting the text define its own context. I’m not trying to insert anything into the context other than that which has already been supplied to us. And the context tells us that this statement was said to a church and is asking them to repent and follow the commands of Christ and be true Christians.

We know that the function of the law is to show us that we are sinners. Rom.7
7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

The prophets talk about Jesus Rev.19:10"for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Jesus is the solution to the sin problem. Ok, who did Jesus come to this earth for.
Jn.3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So, when we see a v. like Rev.3:20
20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

We can see that these two vs. are talking about one and the same thing. The “whosoever” that believes and gains eternal life through that belief in Jn. 3:16 is the same as the “any man” in Rev. 3:20 who opens the door to Christ in faith, and He will come in and dine with him.

The application of the message to the seven churches is

1. To the local church
2. To us as individuals
3. To the church age

The messages to all the churches are pertinant to us today, but the church of Laodicea being the last church it is talking to us today in a very special way. Altho John was talking to a very specific church in his day. If we look at the bigger picture we see that as the last church he is talking to us very specifically.

So, when we look at what Jesus came to do, call all men to repentance and eternal life there is no reson to believe that Rev. 3:20 would be any different, especially if Jesus is talking to the Laodicean church age. And I don’t think that there is any doubt that He is.