What does Jesus mean in His message to the church in Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-22 when He says
"I wish you were cold or hot… because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." (Rev 3:16-17)"?
The most common interpretation assumes that "hot" means spiritual zeal, being "on-fire" for Christ, and therefore good, while "cold" means spiritually lifeless, and therefore is bad. People that are "lukewarm" are despised because they "sit on the fence." They do not totally reject Christ like the "cold," and obviously unsaved, but neither do they evidence a love for Christ and clearly stand for Him like the 'hot" and obviously saved. Jesus is calling for spiritual zeal and vitality and condemning apathy and mediocrity.
There are two considerations that could bring this interpretation into question. The first consideration is the analogy of drinking water that the passage refers to (i.e. – "lukewarm… spit you out of my mouth"). In the analogy, lukewarm is the only "bad option" of the three. In fact, "cold" is very good because it is desirable for drinking. Cold water is a common metaphor for refreshing and a gift of life (Prov 25:5; Jer. 18:14; Matt 10:42). We don't read much in the Bible about hot water, but it is easy to think of this as a positive analogy in terms of drinking hot tea/coffee or taking a hot bath.
We know from the ancient sites near Laodicea that the cold spring at Colossae (for drinking) and the hot spring at nearby Hierapolis (for bathing) were highly desirable, where as the hot water from Hierapolis was tepid and thick with mineral deposits by the time it was piped down to Laodicea (Laodicea did not have its own water supply). It makes good sense given our own tastes for water that Jesus prefers either the cold or the hot in this analogy (and probably the cold more than the hot).
The second consideration is Jesus' statement where He states "I wish you were cold or hot." It makes good sense that Jesus would desire them to be "spiritually hot", "on-fire" for the Lord, but does it make sense that He would desire them to be "spiritually cold" (unsaved)? In itself this would not make sense. However, if we think of the truth that those who at least know their sin and lost condition are more likely to see their need and turn to Christ than those who are impressed with their own "good works" it would make sense. It could be a similar thought to John 9:41
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains. (John 9:41)
It is not good to be blind (or cold) in and of itself, but it could be considered good if it compels one to seek the great physician who can restore sight (and heat). Jesus would not be recommending "coldness" in itself, but only saying if the people knew how cold they were they would seek the fire of Christ's love and grace. This makes sense theologically and fits with other passages (especially John 9). It also fits with the following verse in Revelation 3:17.
"Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing' --and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked-- ~ Revelation 3:17
The call to be "zealous" in Rev. 3:19 supports the idea that "hot" is Jesus' true preference and that "cold" is only a stimulus and call for seeking to be "hot."
Perhaps Jesus' true desire for all is for the "hot" and that the analogy about water breaks down quickly so that while "hot" is acceptable "cold" is not really spiritually acceptable at all.
Might there be another way of looking at Revelation 3:14-22 that could see both "cold" and "hot" as good as a more direct and literal reading of Revelation 3:15-16 would suggest?
There is good evidence in Revelation 2 and 3 that Jesus is examining the quality of the churches' witness. The whole book of Revelation has a repeated emphasis on a true and faithful witness, even to death. One piece of evidence in Revelation 3 is that Jesus refers to their "works," which could easily be a way of referring to their witness. Another is the evidence of use of the terms "spirits," "angels," "stars" and "lampstands." All these things revolve around giving light to bear witness. Even more to the point in the letter to Laodicea is Jesus' reminder of his identity as "the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the Creation of God." (Rev. 3:14). "Amen" and "faithful and true witness" especially bring the idea of being a clear witness front and center. If "beginning of Creation is a parallel expression to "the Word" (John 1:1,14,18), the idea of "witness" would be emphasized there also.
Perhaps a more precise understanding of Jesus' criticism of Laodicea is not just their lack of zeal (which almost certainly is true), but is actually their lack of distinction from the pagan world around them and therefore their ineffective witness to their culture. They have become the same spiritual temperature as the world around them and therefore have lost their ability to be a true witness of Christ to Laodicea. They need to make a clear distinction separate from their fellow Laodiceans so that they can be, and offer, a cool refreshing drink of water of life to their neighbors (and themselves), or so that they can be hot, cleansing, medicinal bath to bring healing to their neighbors (and themselves).
In the end there may not be large difference between these two interpretations. The first interpretation would have a stronger emphasis on the importance of emotional commitment, zeal and the danger of apathy. It isn't hard to make a case for this as an appropriate application as many Christians do seem to be dull toward God and Christ. The second interpretation would have a stronger emphasis on the need for discernment, holiness and making clearer distinctions from the world in one's conduct and witness.
Both ways should be clear warnings to the possibility of a lack of spiritual life (although the first interpretation might favor this more). Either way Christians, and preachers, could and should make much of these themes in their lives and ministries.
0 comments:
Post a Comment