A fairly literal translation of this address to the church at Laodicea reads as follows: “I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold not hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (NRSV)
Or, if you prefer a loose paraphrase: “I know you inside and out, and find little to my liking. You're not cold, you're not hot – far better to be either cold or hot! You're stale. You're stagnant. You make me want to vomit.” (The Message)
The first factor in trying to understand a passage such as this is to pin down the genre in which it is written. All but a small minority of scholars are in agreement that the bulk of Revelation, chapters 4-22, is written largely in highly figurative and symbolic language. But an anonymous article in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery points out: “Symbolic imagery is present already in the letters to the seven churches. Here we read about [for example]...Christians who have been lukewarm. We do not interpret these images literally. They are physical symbols of spiritual realities.”
However, that confronts us immediately with a two-fold challenge: pinning down both the physical referent and the spiritual meaning derived from it.
Traditional Approach
Beale explains, “The image of the Laodiceans being 'neither hot not cold' but 'lukewarm' has traditionally been understood to be metaphorical of their lack of spiritual fervor and halfhearted commitment to Christ. “One problem with this is that Christ's desire that they be either 'cold or hot' implies that both extremes are positive. The traditional view, however, has seen 'cold' negatively, the idea apparently being that Jesus either wants the readers to be either zealous ('hot') for him or completely uncommitted ('cold'), but not middle-of-the-road. But it is unlikely that Christ would commend that extreme of complete disloyalty (though cf. 2 Pet. 2:21).”
We will get back to the 2 Peter passage in a bit, but one thing should stand out concerning this interpretation: it skips immediately to the meaning of the metaphor without first pinning down the physical image present. It simply assumes that everyone has the same underlying meaning attached to the concepts of hot and cold. That sort of fallacy was first brought to my attention decades ago when I lived next door to a fellow chemist at work who was raised in Palestine. There was one of our managers, named Dr. Ward, whom he did not care for. My neighbor thought it was the most hilarious thing in the world to insult him by calling him Mr. Warm. I tried vainly to explain to him that in our culture a warm person exhibits positive traits, but apparently he couldn't grasp the concept due to the negative connotation “warm” had in the Middle East.
Here are the comments of some scholars who hold to this “traditional” view, which was indeed the interpretation I was always taught in our church while growing up.
Morris: “To prefer a rejection of the faith [i.e. coldness] to the way the Laodiceans professed it is startling to say the least (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 21). But to profess Christianity while remaining untouched by its fire is a disaster. There is more hope for the openly antagonistic than for the coolly indifferent...There coolness was a denial of all that Christ stands for...It is worth reflecting that the Ephesians were condemned for too great a zeal, coupled as it was with the absence of love, the Laodiceans for too little.”
Hendricksen: “You cannot do anything with such people. With the heathen, that is, with those who have never come into contact with the Gospel and who are therefore 'cold' with respect to it, you can do something. With sincere, humble Christians you can work with joy. But with these 'we're-all-such-very-good-folks-here-in-Laodicea' people you can do nothing. Even Christ himself cannot stand them.”
“There would have been some hope for Laodicea if it had been stone cold, but to be lukewarm, to be neither one thing nor the other, to be completely compromised, was a condition without hope.” (Phillips)
Note that (1) Morris and Hendricksen totally disagree as to the identity of the “cold” person; (2) none of the three attempts to explain the meaning of “hot”; and (3) II Peter 2:21 does not really provide a close parallel to this passage at all since it describes the complete apostasy of a one-time believer, not a lukewarm attitude at all.
In relation to (1) above, it is interesting that there continued to be a controversy in the early church considering the identity of the lukewarm person. Ford explains that 'lukewarm' “is used by Arethas to describe a man who has received the Holy Spirit in baptism but has quenched the grace. Gregory applies it to a man grown cold after conversion. Origen applies it to unregenerate persons.”
Here is what Hemer has to say in reference to this passage and especially regarding the “traditional” interpretation above: “Some aspects of the association of the three words chiaros [lukewarm], psychros [cold] and zestos [hot] in Rev. 3:15-16 are unique in surviving Greek literature. Here all three are used metaphorically and absolutely of personal character. The passage has usually been understood to refer to levels of spiritual fervor [see Matthew 24:12 for love growing cold and Acts 8:25; Romans 12:11 for a fervent spirit]...and this assumption accords with the exhortation in Rev. 3:19 (zeleoe, be zealous): it would be natural to urge earnest endeavor upon the half-hearted. The common interpretation is however open to question...It is not a matter of saying 'it is better to be hot or even cold, better even stony indifference than half-hearted support.'”
But if the traditional interpretation is not the correct one, then what is? It all begins with a proper identification of the physical image behind the language. Walvoord makes a stab at it with the following comment: “In their feasts as well as in their religious sacrifices people in the ancient world customarily drank what was either hot or cold – never lukewarm. That statement is true, as far as it goes, although I would have personally extended that reference to many situations outside of feasts and sacrifices (see Matthew 10:42 regarding one who gives a cup of cold water to one in need).
Bruce goes one tentative, but critical, step further: “The choice of the figure of lukewarmness to characterize the Laodiceans' ineffectiveness or lack of zeal may have been suggested by their city's water supply...” And that is indeed the judgment of most current commentators.
Similarly, Ruiz says, “Their lukewarm Christianity is nauseating like the tepid water for which the city was known.” And I can identify with that quite well since the water supply in our town growing up was not only lukewarm but also loaded with calcium and magnesium compounds to the point where solids would start precipitating out if it was cooled down, as well has having a vaguely petroleum taste to it.
Mounce does a good job of explaining the condition at Laodicea: “In an important article, Rudwick and Green argue that the adjectives 'hot,' 'cold,' and 'lukewarm' are not to be taken as describing the spiritual fervor (or lack of it) of people. The contrast is between the hot medicinal waters of Hieropolis and the cold, pure waters of Colossae. Thus the church in Laodicea 'was providing neither refreshment for the spiritually weary, nor healing for the spiritually sick. It was totally ineffective, and thus distasteful to the Lord.' On this interpretation the church is not being called to task for its spiritual temperature but for the barrenness of its works. Among the several advantages of this interpretation is the fact that is no longer necessary to wonder why Christ would prefer the church to be 'cold' rather than 'lukewarm.'”
So that brings us next to the meaning of lukewarmness in regard to the Laodicean church. Here scholars may differ somewhat in emphasis, but all are in general agreement.
“Lukewarmness should probably be taken as denoting 'ineffectiveness', the inadequacy of human effort as a substitute for diverse manifestations of God's giving. The central thought of the letter is that effective service hinges upon response to Christ, not upon human endeavor.” (Hemer)
“The community at Laodicea is not accused of any specific disorder, but its condition appears to be worse than that of the other communities because the evil is more insidious. The community members seem to be self-satisfied and indifferent; there seems to be no outstanding evil or persecution to make them aware of the condition of their religion.” (Ford)
“I believe this is very simple: the lukewarm is the one who desires nothing, who does not feel any lack, any absence, who does not understand that there is anything missing, who does not aspire to anything and because of this does not hope for anything. The cold is the one to whom much is lacking and who knows it but who does not ask for anything, who is shut up in the consciousness of his failure. The hot is the one who moves and who acts. But these latter two aspects are ultimately aspects of hope. The lukewarm, who is satisfied with that which he is, is led to do nothing to change, since the actual situation appears satisfactory to him. He then does not see his real situation before God.” (Ellul)
Lastly is the question of how serious Christ's rejection of the Laodiceans was. “Vomiting is here a gesture of disgust, as when the fish expelled Jonah on the land (Jon 2:11)...spitting and vomiting are gestures of revulsion and rejection. The action of the stomach in vomiting, or of the mouth in spitting, becomes a vivid image of rejection. God will spit out the Laodiceans (Rev 3:16), and the land will spit out Israel if the people do not obey (Lev 18:28; 20:22).” (DBI)
And Beasley-Murray states, “There is written a condemnation unequaled in the NT as an expression of the abhorrence of Christ. The reference is to the last judgment (cf. Lk. 13:25-28).”
However, all is not lost for the Laodiceans. As Mounce points out, “It should be noted that although the Lord was about to spew them out of his mouth, there was yet opportunity to repent (vss. 18-20).”
Posts
