Hot, Cold or Lukewarm?

[SpiritLedEd]

In the following passage of scripture, Jesus states to the church at Laodecia that because they are neither hot nor cold but rather are lukewarm that he is about to spit them out of his mouth. What category do you believe fits your life, if you care to say, and what do you think it means to be "hot" or "lukewarm"? Without getting legalistic, what do you think are the dividing factors between a believer who is "hot" and a believer who is "lukewarm"? And, based upon the following passage, what do you think it means when he says "I am about to spit you out of my mouth"? Do you think believers today take this seriously? Do you? And, if so, what difference should it make in your life? I've been giving this a lot of thought lately:

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God

[Fiosh]

"Because if we follow the Greek definitions for "rather" and "nor" we understand He was literally saying "I wish you were cold, or I wish you were hot, but you are neither". Thus, it doesn't matter what "cold" means....we can conclude Christ wished that we would be EITHER hot OR cold. Cold could not be "lost" or bad because He would never wish that."

You have made several major jumps here; none of them are totally supported. I agree and we don't need a Greek lexicon to understand that Christ said very specifically that He would prefer them to be hot or cold rather than lukewarm.

But I would disagree on your interpretation, there is nothing worse than a person who does not believe they need repentance, and indeed a person who is lost and feels the need for repentance, who is cold toward Christ is actually closer to Christ than a charlatan Christian. This actually fits perfectly with the teachings of Christ. Who did Christ save His most severe condemnation for? The whores, the thieves, the drunkards none of whom knew God at all, all were totally lost, BUT they felt the need for the Gospel, they knew they were sinners in need of healing, no they were not condemned by Christ because they had a chance. But the Jewish religious leaders with their theology, their pride, their loud public prayers (they probably were the first to pray at football games), their pretend piety, this is who He held his harshest condemnation for, because they were blind they didn't think they needed to repent, thus He smacked them with harsh language, because indeed He hoped for their salvation, just as He hoped for the salvation of the Church in this letter.

I think the bible uses complex language, and I think Christ provides us with interesting insights, this is one of those passages.

EXACTLY!!!!! Have you ever thought of becoming a pastor???

I have to say that I am thoroughly enjoying the thrill of searching God's word tonite with you all. And I am glad that we have managed to do it in a spirit of love. It's like a treasure hunt!

Your sister in Christ

[apothanein kerdos]

"Because if we follow the Greek definitions for "rather" and "nor" we understand He was literally saying "I wish you were cold, or I wish you were hot, but you are neither". Thus, it doesn't matter what "cold" means....we can conclude Christ wished that we would be EITHER hot OR cold. Cold could not be "lost" or bad because He would never wish that."

You have made several major jumps here; none of them are totally supported. I agree and we don't need a Greek lexicon to understand that Christ said very specifically that He would prefer them to be hot or cold rather than lukewarm.

But I would disagree on your interpretation, there is nothing worse than a person who does not believe they need repentance, and indeed a person who is lost and feels the need for repentance, who is cold toward Christ is actually closer to Christ than a charlatan Christian. This actually fits perfectly with the teachings of Christ. Who did Christ save His most severe condemnation for? The whores, the thieves, the drunkards none of whom knew God at all, all were totally lost, BUT they felt the need for the Gospel, they knew they were sinners in need of healing, no they were not condemned by Christ because they had a chance. But the Jewish religious leaders with their theology, their pride, their loud public prayers (they probably were the first to pray at football games), their pretend piety, this is who He held his harshest condemnation for, because they were blind they didn't think they needed to repent, thus He smacked them with harsh language, because indeed He hoped for their salvation, just as He hoped for the salvation of the Church in this letter.

I think the bible uses complex language, and I think Christ provides us with interesting insights, this is one of those passages.

EXACTLY!!!!! Have you ever thought of becoming a pastor???

I have to say that I am thoroughly enjoying the thrill of searching God's word tonite with you all. And I am glad that we have managed to do it in a spirit of love. It's like a treasure hunt!

Your sister in Christ

I definately give up....I use Greek, historical context, actual literal context, and geographical context, and all I get is, "I believe this..." It's just not worth it at this point.

[Fiosh]

"Because if we follow the Greek definitions for "rather" and "nor" we understand He was literally saying "I wish you were cold, or I wish you were hot, but you are neither". Thus, it doesn't matter what "cold" means....we can conclude Christ wished that we would be EITHER hot OR cold. Cold could not be "lost" or bad because He would never wish that."

You have made several major jumps here; none of them are totally supported. I agree and we don't need a Greek lexicon to understand that Christ said very specifically that He would prefer them to be hot or cold rather than lukewarm.

But I would disagree on your interpretation, there is nothing worse than a person who does not believe they need repentance, and indeed a person who is lost and feels the need for repentance, who is cold toward Christ is actually closer to Christ than a charlatan Christian. This actually fits perfectly with the teachings of Christ. Who did Christ save His most severe condemnation for? The whores, the thieves, the drunkards none of whom knew God at all, all were totally lost, BUT they felt the need for the Gospel, they knew they were sinners in need of healing, no they were not condemned by Christ because they had a chance. But the Jewish religious leaders with their theology, their pride, their loud public prayers (they probably were the first to pray at football games), their pretend piety, this is who He held his harshest condemnation for, because they were blind they didn't think they needed to repent, thus He smacked them with harsh language, because indeed He hoped for their salvation, just as He hoped for the salvation of the Church in this letter.

I think the bible uses complex language, and I think Christ provides us with interesting insights, this is one of those passages.

EXACTLY!!!!! Have you ever thought of becoming a pastor???

I have to say that I am thoroughly enjoying the thrill of searching God's word tonite with you all. And I am glad that we have managed to do it in a spirit of love. It's like a treasure hunt!

Your sister in Christ

I definately give up....I use Greek, historical context, actual literal context, and geographical context, and all I get is, "I believe this..." It's just not worth it at this point.

LOVE the emoticon!!!! It's so you!

[eric]

Quote C F S, Jan 15th 2006,

I have been thinking this through, and I still have not come to any conclusion on this, but if hot means what you say and cold means what you say, why would Christ say he would rather they be one or the other? And, just from a natural viewpoint just from basic English, if I were to speak in an English lit class about hot and cold and lukewarm or a science class, I think the understanding would be clear that cold and hot were opposites and that lukewarm was in between. So, if that is true, why would Christ say he would rather they be one or the other? I think it is because he would rather we take a stand for Christ or not stand at all. It is not that he would desire us to be cold, but in comparison to lukewarm, he would rather we either be for him or against him than to say we are for him and then not live like what we say. Like one person said, lukewarm Christians do the most damage to the name of Christianity because they proclaim one thing but live another. I'm still thinking this one through, though. I think there are good arguments on both sides. But whether you believe cold is "refreshing" or you believe it means to not be a believer, one thing is still clear. God hates lukewarmness in Christians who are the church and he will discipline the church, which is the body of believers, which is made up of individuals for their lukewarmness, and I believe this is a warning to all people who call themselves Christians to get on their knees before God in humility and repentance and to surrender to God.

--------------------

Sue

My first shot at this thread and I am going to agree with C F S as that is what I have understood from the first time I ever read Revelation. You are either for Christ and His teachings or you are againt Him and His teachings. If you talk the talk and and don't walk the walk you are useless in the body and you'll get spat out.

I, personally don't think that Jesus would castegate the whole body for the slackness of a few unworthy members of that body. JMO.

eric.

[Guest shiloh357]

reposting this because he gave the original word and it's meaning....but it appears it's been ignored.

You are not being ignored. We're thinking... catch you tomorrow.

Okay, I guess it just seems unusual to me. I mean, when someone gives you the Greek word, which has a very specific meaning...how much thinking is left?

Tess,

There are varied interpretations of Greek words. My husband studied Greek in Bible college, but I did not. I can not just automatically just say because Tess said that is what it means that that obviously is what it means. I've read enough to know that. I appreciate your input and I will look into what you said and I will get back with you when I've had time to research it myself. This is not a slight of you, ok? I just like to check things out for myself.

I think this shows the hold tradition can have. Most have always taken at face value and defined for themselves, what "hot" and "cold" means. This passage has long been interpreted the absence of the metaphorical reference. It is not important what "hot" and "cold" means to us. What is important, is what it meant to author of the passage, and what it would have meant to the original hearers.

We have been inundated with the concept of "hot" and "cold" spirituality as meaning either "on fire," or "spiritually dead." In OTHER contexts, that may have value. The question is can we apply those definitions of hot and cold to this passage and not violate it context???

We have to get beyond face value and draw out the meaning that the author was intending to convey, instead of applying subjective judgements to the passage.

A.K. has already pointed out in the Greek that Jesus said wish your were "hot" or cold, but you are neither. There is NO logical, sensible reason for Jesus to say, " I wish you were hot or cold" if "cold" means that you are living in sin, apart from the Lord.

The point is, hot and cold are not being used as opposites. Hot and cold are being used as opposite of Lukewarm. Hot and cold are desirable, as opposed to lukewarm. I can be refreshed with cold water, I can cook or get clean with hot water. Lukewarm is not refreshing, nor will it kill germs or cook my food. It is useless.

Since Lukewarmness is what Jesus said that he will spew out of His mouth, what is it that is lukewarm that could be ingested and make someone sick to the point of vomiting?? As stated, it is water. Lukewarm water is where bacteria flourishes, and where parasites lay their eggs. Diseases like Malaria our found in lukewarm standing swamp water. It would have been a very colorful, meaningful, and poingnant reference to the Laodiceans. It would have gotten the point across to them due to their geographic location, and since bacteria does not grow in hot or cold water, it gives us insight into the metaphor. Jesus was comparing them to the disgusting, bacterial, parasite ridden water they had to deal with everyday. Hot or cold would have been more desirable than that.

It is lukewarm water that Christ says he detests. It has been said that "Lukewarmness" amounts to fence riding, and that is not true. Lukewarmness refers here, to apathy. They were a church in profession only. They were useless to the Kingdom of God.

It really is simple. You are holding on to traditional face value approaches, that subjectively read the meaning of "hot" and "cold" into the passage. It is quite clear from the passage, that "cold" and "hot" hold a different connotation than they might in another context.

And, just from a natural viewpoint just from basic English, if I were to speak in an English lit class about hot and cold and lukewarm or a science class, I think the understanding would be clear that cold and hot were opposites and that lukewarm was in between.

That demonstrates what I mean. You are not in an English class, or a science class. You have to use the context and the metaphor being used in the passage in order to objectively understand what it being said to the Laodiceans. You cannot use your natural viewpoint to subjectively impose what YOU want hot and cold to mean.

I have a feeling that you had a particular direction you were headed, and if we apply this passage in light of the metaphor, it kinds puts a crimp in things.

I definately give up....I use Greek, historical context, actual literal context, and geographical context, and all I get is, "I believe this..."

That is the hold that tradition has on people. Christians can be as bad as anyone when it comes to holding to their traditions.

[Kabowd]

reposting this because he gave the original word and it's meaning....but it appears it's been ignored.

You are not being ignored. We're thinking... catch you tomorrow.

Okay, I guess it just seems unusual to me. I mean, when someone gives you the Greek word, which has a very specific meaning...how much thinking is left?

Tess,

There are varied interpretations of Greek words. My husband studied Greek in Bible college, but I did not. I can not just automatically just say because Tess said that is what it means that that obviously is what it means. I've read enough to know that. I appreciate your input and I will look into what you said and I will get back with you when I've had time to research it myself. This is not a slight of you, ok? I just like to check things out for myself.

I think this shows the hold tradition can have. Most have always taken at face value and defined for themselves, what "hot" and "cold" means. This passage has long been interpreted the absence of the metaphorical reference. It is not important what "hot" and "cold" means to us. What is important, is what it meant to author of the passage, and what it would have meant to the original hearers.

We have been inundated with the concept of "hot" and "cold" spirituality as meaning either "on fire," or "spiritually dead." In OTHER contexts, that may have value. The question is can we apply those definitions of hot and cold to this passage and not violate it context???

We have to get beyond face value and draw out the meaning that the author was intending to convey, instead of applying subjective judgements to the passage.

A.K. has already pointed out in the Greek that Jesus said wish your were "hot" or cold, but you are neither. There is NO logical, sensible reason for Jesus to say, " I wish you were hot or cold" if "cold" means that you are living in sin, apart from the Lord.

The point is, hot and cold are not being used as opposites. Hot and cold are being used as opposite of Lukewarm. Hot and cold are desirable, as opposed to lukewarm. I can be refreshed with cold water, I can cook or get clean with hot water. Lukewarm is not refreshing, nor will it kill germs or cook my food. It is useless.

Since Lukewarmness is what Jesus said that he will spew out of His mouth, what is it that is lukewarm that could be ingested and make someone sick to the point of vomiting?? As stated, it is water. Lukewarm water is where bacteria flourishes, and where parasites lay their eggs. Diseases like Malaria our found in lukewarm standing swamp water. It would have been a very colorful, meaningful, and poingnant reference to the Laodiceans. It would have gotten the point across to them due to their geographic location, and since bacteria does not grow in hot or cold water, it gives us insight into the metaphor. Jesus was comparing them to the disgusting, bacterial, parasite ridden water they had to deal with everyday. Hot or cold would have been more desirable than that.

It is lukewarm water that Christ says he detests. It has been said that "Lukewarmness" amounts to fence riding, and that is not true. Lukewarmness refers here, to apathy. They were a church in profession only. They were useless to the Kingdom of God.

It really is simple. You are holding on to traditional face value approaches, that subjectively read the meaning of "hot" and "cold" into the passage. It is quite clear from the passage, that "cold" and "hot" hold a different connotation than they might in another context.

And, just from a natural viewpoint just from basic English, if I were to speak in an English lit class about hot and cold and lukewarm or a science class, I think the understanding would be clear that cold and hot were opposites and that lukewarm was in between.

That demonstrates what I mean. You are not in an English class, or a science class. You have to use the context and the metaphor being used in the passage in order to objectively understand what it being said to the Laodiceans. You cannot use your natural viewpoint to subjectively impose what YOU want hot and cold to mean.

I have a feeling that you had a particular direction you were headed, and if we apply this passage in light of the metaphor, it kinds puts a crimp in things.

I definately give up....I use Greek, historical context, actual literal context, and geographical context, and all I get is, "I believe this..."

That is the hold that tradition has on people. Christians can be as bad as anyone when it comes to holding to their traditions.

THANK YOU!!!

[Christ's Free Servant]

Well it is one way of looking at cold, and I don't think it is invalid at all. Although I think the way I was thinking of lukewarm, it does not mean almost faithful, or almost there, it means a blindness which does not produce repentance, thus the Lord needs to smack their eyes open to get their attention, and thus the need for the severe letter and tone.

Hi Christ's Free Servant. Isn't the bible amazing. There is just so much there for us to think about. For me any of these interpretations are useful and helpful to me personally and my church. I think it is meant to make us think in this way, maybe there is not in this case only one correct way of understanding this passage?

Smalcald,

I have been reading various commentaries on this passage and have been amazed at the various ways of interpreting the passage. It can certainly be applied to churches today, even if it was written for the church of Laodecia. Some feel it applies to the universal church in America, and I have to agree that it does describe much of what we see in the Church in America, though certainly some of the other letters describe various individual church bodies, as well.

There are two schools of thought on the meaning of the word "cold" - one thought being that it refers to the water of a nearby town which had cold and refreshing springs and another thought is that cold is the opposite of hot, so it refers to non-believers and "hot" refers to those who are walking in fellowship and obedience with God. Lukewarm could mean they are neither living fruitful regenerated lives nor are they of the belief that Jesus did not die for their sins, but they are duped into believing they are believers when they are not. The "lukewarm" are thought to be either Christians who are living in apathy or they are non-believers who think they are believers, because it goes on to say that they think they are rich when they are poor, etc. So, there are two schools of thought on what it means to be "lukewarm," as well.

I think that no matter which way it is interpreted, the message is clear - we, the Church, need to take a hard look at our lives, both as a whole body and as individuals who make up the whole body. We need to examine ourselves to see if we are "lukewarm" in our relationship with the Lord - whether we are true believers who have slipped into mediocrity and who need to be revived or we are actually not true believers but have been fed a lie to convince us we are believers. Whichever the case may be, we need to get on our knees before God, we need to repent of our sins, and we need to draw near to God. We need to move from "lukewarmness" into His wonderful light and we need to begin walking in that light. Only God knows our hearts. Only he knows who is truly his. And, only he knows truly what it means when he says he will spit you out of his mouth. We can speculate, but only he knows what that truly means.

Now, was this written to a specific church at a specific time or is this representative of a Church age or is it something else? There are several schools of thought on that, as well. No matter our thinking on that, there is a reason it is in Revelation. I think that is what we need to look at. Why is it there? And, what are we supposed to glean from it? Is there a universal principle that can be applied to our lives that is consistent with other scripture? I believe there is. And, why is it in Revelation? I personally believe these letters describe various conditions in churches that both existed then and exist now and the reason these letters are in Revelation is so we, the Church, can examine our hearts and can repent of our sins and can be in a right relationship with Christ before he returns, not only for ourselves, but for the salvation of others. If the Church in America (people) would get on its knees before God in repentance, we could shake this nation for Jesus! And, that is what this nation of ours needs right now. Either we shake it for Christ's sake, or He is going to shake it for repentance's sake. Oh, Church, wake up!

[Christ's Free Servant]

All this arguing over hot and cold when it is luke warmness that is the issue.

[Kabowd]

I have a feeling that you had a particular direction you were headed, and if we apply this passage in light of the metaphor, it kinds puts a crimp in things.

I'm beginning to believe this too, my friend.