The Nature of the “Riches”We should note also that it may be that the reference to “riches” made by John is a reference to spiritual riches, and not to material wealth at all.
These riches and other goods in which the Laodicean Church and Angel gloried we must understand as spiritual riches in which they fondly imagined they abounded. . . . [T]his language in this application is justified by numerous passages in Scripture: as by Luke xii. 21; 1 Cor. i:5; 2 Cor. viii. 9; above all, by two passages of holy irony, 1 Cor. iv. 8 and Hos. xii. 8; both standing in very closest connexion with this; I can indeed hardly doubt that there is intended a reference to the latter of these words of our Lord. The Laodicean Angel, and the church he was drawing into the same ruin with himself, were walking in a vain show and imagination of their own righteousness, their own advances in spiritual insight and knowledge.A good number of commentators suggest allusion here to 1 Corinthians 4:8 and Hosea 12:8. Additional passages such as Luke 18:11, 12; 16: 15; and 1 Corinthians 13:1 can be consulted as well. If this interpretation of “riches” in Revelation 3:17 is valid, then the entire force of this argument is dispelled. Surprisingly, this is even the view of Mounce: “The material wealth of Laodicea is well established. The huge sums taken from Asian cities by Roman oficia.ls during the Mithridatic period and following indicate enormous wealth. . . . The ‘wealth’ claimed by the Laodicean church, however, was not material but spiritual. . . . [T]he Laodiceans felt they were secure in their spiritual attainment .“Ease of Recovery
In addition, there is the impressive historical evidence of the situation that tends to undermine the rationale of the argument, even if material riches are in view. Most ruinous to the entire argument is the documented fact of Laodicea’s apparently effortless, unaided, and rapid recovery from the earthquake. Tacitus reports that the city did not even find it necessary to apply for an imperial subsidy to help them rebuild, even though such was customary for cities in Asia Minor. As Tacitus records it, Laodicea “arose from the ruins by the strength of her own resources, and with no help from us. ” This is as clear a statement as is necessary to demonstrate that Laodicea’s economic strength was not radically diminished by the quake. Despite the quake, economic resources were so readily available within Laodicea that the city could easily recover itself from the damage. Interestingly, both Morris and Mounce make reference to this statement by Tacitus, despite their using the argument to demand a late date.
Furthermore, it would seem that the time element would not be extremely crucial for “earthquakes were very frequent thereabouts, and rebuilding doubtless followed at once. ” The quake occurred in A.D. 61; if Revelation were written as early as A.D. 65 or early A.D. 66 (as is likely), that would give four years for rebuilding. We must remember that the recovery was self-generated. Simple economic analysis demands that for the resources to survive, rebuilding would have to be rapid.
Gentry, "Before Jerusalem Fell", pp. 319-321
(Gentry devotes a section in his book to the condition of the seven churches.)
Interesting. One preterist is arguing that they were destroyed and couldn't recover. The other is arguing they were destroyed and could recover. In other words, Laodicea offers no evidence for preterism.
The fact is that Laodicea was a wealthy city due to the banking industry that was there.
Laodicea was thriving in the 90's and it was thriving in the 70's. It seems a wash to me.