Introduction

There is a concept popular in theology, not only amongst laymen and pastors, but even at the professional and academic levels of theology. This concept is so popular that it’s made its way into culture and even into pop-culture![1] It has been captured in the popular Christian imagination so concretely that it makes its way into commentaries and sermons and is so universally accepted that it colors the thinking of Christians and functions unnoticed in the worldview, affecting us in untold and immeasurable ways.

Revelation 3 says this:

15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. (NIV).

15 οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς εἶ οὔτε ζεστός. ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἦς ἢ ζεστός. 16 οὕτως ὅτι χλιαρὸς εἶ καὶ οὔτε ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός, μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου (NA28).

And right now, almost certainly you know you know the correct interpretation of this passage. Or at least you think you know. And, even if not consciously, operating somewhere in the corners of your mind is the idea that Jesus would rather someone be be totally opposed to Christ rather than to be moderately committed, or nominally committed.

The interpretation becomes a theological concept that could be phrased thus: that being “lukewarm” is more dangerous than being out-and-out against Jesus because the lukewarm person may be self-deceived and therefore harder to reach with the gospel.

And as can be seen pretty clearly, this theological concept has implications in Soteriology; Missiology; Ecclesiology; and Practical Theology, as well. This notion that being “cold”, i.e., being opposed to Christ is preferable to being “lukewarm” has the power to affect pretty much every area of theology – it speaks directly to our Theology Proper and Christology and Pneumatology. It speaks to what God wills and what’s “easier” and “harder” for God to do (at least in the Arminian iterations of this concept).

And all of this is well and good. Bible interpretations SHOULD inform our theology and practice. But there are several presuppositions that go unchallenged that are necessary for this to be the correct interpretation of this verse. And if these presuppositions can be contradicted, or at least proved uncertain, then the textual interpretation vanishes, as does the theological thesis that lukewarm Christianity is worse than open antipathy to Christ. And I don’t think that those presuppositions can withstand serious scrutiny. Nor do I think the idea that lukewarmness is more dangerous than convinced hostility and antagonism to the gospel is a good soteriological model – in fact, it seems to contradict what we know is true about how people (generally) come to faith.

So, what I’d like to do, briefly, is first demonstrate that “hot” and “cold” are not referring to saved and unsaved states (respectively…or irrespectively). Second, I’d like to show that, theologically, preferencing hostility to Christ over lukewarmness is poor soteriology which may lead to poor ecclesiology and missiology. Then we’ll summarize the findings with some action steps in the conclusion – cause, I mean, you have to summarize with action steps!

Evaluating the Interpretation

So, let’s start at the beginning. Is it true that “hot” and “cold” are referring to being saved and “on fire” for Christ on one hand and being totally spiritually dead and even hostile to Christ on the other? Pop-theology would have you think so. But what about the text? What about the word choices?

Significantly, both the words in question are relatively rare. Moreover, both are words that seem to often be used as adjectives to describe water! Zestos (ζεστος) is used only 2 times in both the Greek New Testament and only in these 2 verses in Revelation and Zestos is not used anywhere in the LXX[2]. This rarity suggests Jesus and/ or John are making a deliberate choice, when one considers that they could have used Thermos (θερμος) for hot. And Psyoochros is not the only word for cold. Matthew, John, Luke, and Paul use the word Psyoochos (ψυχος) – there are 4 passages using Psyoochos and Psyoochros (ψυχρος) is used only here and in Matthew in the New Testament. All three times usages of Psyoochros refer to “cold water”. While Psyoochros is rare, in Matthew, cold water is a great blessing. Not only is it rare in the New Testament, but in the LXX, Psyoochros is used only one time – in Proverbs 25:25:

25 Like cold water to a weary soul

is good news from a distant land.

Again, like in Matthew, this is a positive use of the word, it doesn’t mean emotional deadness or antipathy, but cold water is a good thing! What’s more, the distinction between Psyoochros (ψυχρος) and Psyoochos (ψυχος) follows the difference in Hebrew usage of the words QaR (קַר), QoR (קֹר), and the verb QaRaCH (קרח). There is one exception, where the LXX does not follow the Hebrew usage. Jeremiah 18:14 in the Hebrew uses the word QaR, which is translated as Psoochros in Proverbs 25:25, however in the Jeremiah passage the Greek version omits the adjective altogether. Here, again, the word (if it had not been omitted) should have been describing cold water, and in a positive context, which is consistent with other usages. Thus, if we look at the uses of the concept of “cold water” in the entire Bible we see only positive uses. It should be noted that Jeremiah 18:14 has several Text-Critical issues in Hebrew and in Greek. But for purposes of clarity, we’ll put the Hebrew, and Greek Texts here along with the NIV.

14μὴ ἐκλείψουσιν ἀπὸ πέτρας μαστοὶ ἢ χιὼν ἀπὸ τοῦ Λιβάνου; μὴ ἐκκλινεῖ ὕδωρ βιαίως ἀνέμῳ φερόμενον;

14 הֲיַעֲזֹ֥ב מִצּ֛וּר שָׂדַ֖י שֶׁ֣לֶג לְבָנֹ֑ון אִם־יִנָּתְשׁ֗וּ מַ֛יִם זָרִ֥ים קָרִ֖ים נֹוזְלִֽים׃

14 Does the snow of Lebanon

ever vanish from its rocky slopes?

Do its cool waters from distant sources

ever stop flowing?

But here’s the important point – even if the LXX is wrong, nothing changes; Psyoochros, uniformly refers to cool/ cold water, as do its Hebrew antecedents, and it is used uniformly positively. In other words, when this word for cold is used in the Bible it never means anything bad, it always means cold water that’s good.

One last point on the vocabulary and syntax. Notice what’s there and what’s missing. Let’s look at the text again:

Cold is placed before Hot in clauses b and c but not d. Why? Does word placement matter? I think you would have an extremely difficult (read: impossible) challenge trying to sustain that word-order means anything. A hyperliteral translation says: “that neither cold you are neither hot; would that cold you should be or hot. In this manner, because lukewarm you and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth.”

Where are linguistic keys that inform us that coldness is not desirable, but is better than lukewarmness? If that were the case, wouldn’t we expect something like “You aren’t hot – you aren’t even cold!” The letters to the Churches of Asia Minor are not lacking in qualifications. If Cold were bad, then wouldn’t there be some kind of clue, either verbally (the meanings and biblical theological uses refute this), syntactically (no case to be made), or with some kind of clarificatory expression or clause (none exists)? In short, there is no reason whatever to read “Cold” as lost/ unsaved/ opposed to Christ. None. In fact, the only place we might say that the syntax might suggest the superiority of either Cold or Hot is in clause c “ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἦς ἢ ζεστός”/ “I wish you were cold OR hot”. Being hot may be the less preferable thermal quality. In clause b both cold and hot are modified by the conjunction “neither”, thus what you do with one you ought to do with the other; here Cold comes before “or”. I don’t think one should, or could, make a syntactical case to establish the moral superiority of Hot or Cold…but if you were to do so (which you shouldn’t) you’d have a better case saying Hot is the less preferable condition!

So, that makes one ask – why then would we presume that Psyoochros means something bad in Revelation 3? It seems to be because people hear Hot-Cold-Lukewarm and presuppose that it’s referring to a spectrum or continuum. But if that’s the case why should we presume that being “Hot” means being good? Zestos is never used anywhere else in the Bible, we have 2 other uses of Psyoochros, both are positive, and we should have a 3rd one that also would be positive!

“Well,” people would argue, “the Bible refers to ‘being on fire’ for the Lord, therefore being ‘Hot’ is good.” Ummm, no. That dog won’t hunt, Monseigneur. All we have to do is look at Luke’s story of Lazarus and the Rich Man – Hot and Cold have very clear meanings there and Hot ain’t exactly seen in a positive light. Moreover, we could simply read the rest of Revelation and see that Hot is kinda painted in a negative light throughout this piece!

Or, we could do what good theologians and Bible scholars do and consider the cultural context. It was clear that Laodicea couldn’t get either hot or cold water because they were too far from the mountains for the water to stay cold, and too far from Hierapolis for the waters from its hot-springs to stay warm and consider that both are good and that both are desirable. We could consider that hot and cold drinks were provided at festivals in those days but never lukewarm water. We could consider that Greco-Roman culture had an affinity for baths and also for refreshment and so hot and cold water both had very positive, but different roles. We could consider our own lives and recognize that most of us take hot showers and like cold drinks on a hot day. We could imagine that living in an age before refrigeration might give us a slightly different perspective on cold water. We could do all those things and recognize that John isn’t not talking about a theological continuum from theological antipathy to apathy to vibrancy, but Jesus and John are merely making an allusion to the fact that the Laodiceans knew how frustrating it was to have a constant supply of water that wasn’t what you wanted because you either had to then heat it up or cool it down before it was useful. The water was there but it wasn’t good for anything!

That seems to fit the data doesn’t it? So why don’t we go with that theory?

Or consider that the theory that “lukewarmness is worse than open hostility” necessarily rests on the idea that the Laodiceans are lost. But where’s the evidence for that? The “Open the Door” passage? Dr. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary explodes that theory in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, demonstrating conclusively that the Laodiceans weren’t lost, unsaved souls, but were, indeed, Lukewarm Christians…but Christians, nonetheless.

Why Do We Believe the Unbelievable?

So, these cause two questions to emerge. First, why does this interpretation persist when there is neither a textual, Biblical theological, or historical/ archaeological/ cultural basis for it? Second, why do we let it affect our systematic theology? Well, the second question is simple: all of our Biblical interpretations affect and influence our systematics – they can’t not. And the more common an interpretation is, and the more ingrained it is in our theological imaginary[3], and the more that our theology preferences that particular interpretation and uses it as a proof-text, the more it will shape our theology and particularly our practice. The first question may be a little more precarious to answer, but I think there is a generally trustworthy answer (or pair of answers). We persist in this interpretation (namely that Jesus would rather we be raging atheists or persecutors than Lukewarm Christians) because either we accept it uncritically and/ or because “it preaches”.

Sadly, a lot of things are accepted and preached simply because they preach well. But rhetorical power is not a test of truth. Sure, I get it – I get the allure of shocking your blue-hairs and your football-dads out of complacency by saying Jesus would rather you were an earnest atheist or even an enemy of God than an apathetic friend. You can remind people of how much Paul did for the Church. You can say how lukewarmness threatens your eternal soul because it prevents you from realizing your lost estate.

But all this is circular reasoning. We affirm the rhetorical/ theological point (that Jesus prefers enemies to pseudo-friends) by appealing to the text. But the text doesn’t actually say that. The text simply prefers hotness and coldness to lukewarmness. But while tepidity is given a definition (which seems to be apathy to the things of God manifests in reliance upon worldly wealth (or vice-versa)); we have no definition at all of what hotness and coldness are – other than that they are both desirable.

But, since this concept has become so deeply intertwined with Protestant and Evangelical homiletics and systematics it now backfeeds into our hermeneutics. We use our systematics to inform our hermeneutics to interpret the text that gives us the basis of the theological principle in the first place!

In other words, the only way to substantiate that Jesus would rather that you were openly hostile to the faith than to be an apathetic Christian is to appeal to the text in Revelation 3. But you need the theological point to substantiate the interpretation of Revelation 3, because that is not a legitimate interpretation of the text itself. You must appeal to systematics to draw the interpretation of Revelation 3 that says that Jesus prefers pagans to pseudo-saints, but you can’t get that systematic point from any other text in the Bible! It’s just a big circle. So, let’s step out of it.

Real World Implications

Theology has consequences. This theological principle has consequences. I could give you a whole series of negative implications and applications that this thesis has in our theology and practice, and perhaps in the future I’ll return to this topic in a more substantial way and we can discuss more completely the various implications. But, for today, I think one will suffice.

What do we do with our children? What do we do with our children when we have, underlying all our theology, the idea that God prefers active enemies to apathetic friends? Does that NOT affect our theology? Does that NOT affect our practice? I don’t believe that our actions and beliefs are all that different. We’ll accommodate one to suit the other – and typically we’ll make the accommodation to make our lives easier and less conflicted.

So, let’s consider an example. John and Jane Johnson have a son, Jack, who fights with them every week, refusing to go to church. HE hates it. It’s boring. He throws a fit every time. John and Jane decide that they won’t force Jack to go to church because they would rather that he finds out that the world is rough and he’ll come to want Christ after he gets a mouthful of reality and learns how bitter it is…because the LAST thing they want to do is embitter their child against the gospel! Because, as they well know, if they force Jack to go to church and sit quietly and politely he might just fake it and learn to be a hypocrite; whereas, if he goes his own way and is an honest pagan, God can reach him with the Holy Spirit, because God can’t reach hypocrites. They cannot force their son to be a Pharisee!

Underneath all this is a theology that God can reach his enemies more easily than his friends. Which flies in the face of the entire history of the Church, minus the Conversionistic 19th and 20th Centuries in North America and Europe. But other than 2 centuries in the Anglophone West, Churches have been places where people are discipled into the faith over time.

Yes, the Acts of the Apostles have dramatic pictures of people coming to faith in crisis moments where they are confronted with the gospel. And we should not stop witnessing to people in random encounters. But to presuppose that that’s normative not only to the Apostolic Age, but should be normative NOW, is an unsustainable leap that doesn’t match the Church’s 2,000 year history of catechizing children and people interested (but not fully committed to the faith).

All over the world people are recognizing that, oftentimes, discipleship happens for years even decades before true conversion is effected. Historically, catechesis is the norm and “confrontational” evangelism is the outlier. But John and Jane don’t read historical theology. They just want to stop fighting with their son. And the easiest way to avoid conflict with a child is to surrender…like cowards do. And cowards always have an excuse – and the idea that it’s actually for Jack’s spiritual good to not be in church as an unbeliever and it’s better for him to stop going to church and continue living a godless life is cowardly, self-serving, deadly, and may cost their son his salvation.

Friends, think of how nonsensical it is. Does God really prefer people to be blasphemous murderers than people who sit in church apathetically? Really? If you believe that you need to have your head examined. God hates godlessness and ungodliness.

What we’re saying is that God prefers sinfulness to dutiful, but emotionless, obedience. Emotionless obedience isn’t as good as zeal, but it’s better than hateful disobedience, is it not? Tell me what you’d prefer in your home? I’m guessing you’d prefer your kids to be apathetically obedient to being hateful and defiant?

We need to fix our soteriology and our ecclesiology. We need to recognize that having kids in church hearing the gospel, hearing teaching, practicing in worship, giving their wealth, reciting creeds, getting used to the rhythms and paces of liturgies, learning to hold sacred things sacred, becoming part of a community that loves what is good and hates what is evil is a good thing. Of course, it’s no guarantee of their salvation; but nobody’s saying that (well, nobody in the Protestant and especially Evangelical camps). But the tragedy is that we don’t force our kids to sit through sermons, bible teaching, to learn creeds, to get used to liturgical rhythms, to hold the sacred as sacred, to love what’s good and hate what’s evil because we don’t want those things either. American Christianity has become pop-theology and hip-music, largely without depth, largely without commitment, rarely with accountability. We are not challenged to love the good and hate the evil, but instead we’re given political lectures, and self-help mantras. We don’t want to fight with our kids over holding these things sacred because, largely, we don’t either. We’re lukewarm and don’t know it, so we excuse the apathy and antipathy of children saying that it’s better for them to have nothing to do with Christ than to be lukewarm because we’re so lukewarm we don’t insist on our children learning and practicing the faith! And isn’t it ironic…donchya think?

Pastors and Parishioners are creating lukewarm pulpits and lukewarm pews and so lukewarm Christians come up with excuses to validate their lukewarmness. Pastors use the popular interpretation of Revelation 3 to try to shake up their flock to get zealous and repent! Lazy and cowardly Christians use this passage as an excuse to not fight the good fight of the faith as far as their kids go. Churches, use the principle that lukewarm Christianity is worse than enmity with God to justify all kinds of poor praxis with the all controlling mantra that things must be “authentic”. Ironically, the passage pastors use for shock value is the passage people use to justify, ironically, even more lukewarmness!

A Call to Action

So, although it should be obvious, here’s my call to action: get deeply involved in your local fellowship; learn the Bible; serve; disciple others and be discipled; worship Christ; celebrate the sacraments; be zealous and repent. If your church is all pop-psychology and politics, try to get it focused on the gospel; talk to your pastor and/ or elders; fight for godliness. If they are unable or unwilling to be hot or cold but remain lukewarm: leave. If you have kids, get them to a church where they will actually be in church. Don’t pretend you’ll die for Christ if you won’t fight with you 11 year old.

A Concluding Image

Lastly, consider this. Imagine two children: Jack Johnson (remember him?) and Tommy Thompson. Jack’s parents, John and Jane, went to a pop-psychology/ politics/ cool-kids church on Sundays (well most Sundays…well…some Sundays) where their kids went to kids’ church and got a 5-minute lesson and did crafts. Jack, when he aged-out of the system at 15, went to real church for a few months and then started fighting because it was boring and the Johnsons decided to let him sleep in and play video games. Tommy, on the other hand, went to a church 2 times a week, where the pastor taught the Bible carefully for 30 minutes on Sunday and an hour on Wednesday.

By the time Tommy is 18, he’ll have heard about 7,500 hours of solid Bible teaching and participated in communion hundreds if not thousands of times. He will have recited the Nicene or Apostle’s creed hundreds of times. He will have watched his parents give money to the church thousands of times. He would have seen from the time he was a baby that Christ and the Church are the highest priority.

By the time Jack is 18 he’ll have heard maybe 100 hours…MAYBE…of Bible teaching; with no creedal recitation, no sacramental participation, no witnessing of giving, and no prioritization.

Which child is more likely to know, understand, believe, and follow the faith? All things being equal, you’d be a fool to not think Tommy’s in better shape.

I grant that this concluding image has a lot to more to do with Ecclesiology than the topic of the interpretation of the passage in Revelation 3:15,6. But these are not unrelated concepts. Churches have gotten soft on theology and serious worship because they don’t want people “going through the motions” which is linked with “inauthenticity” and therefore “lukewarmness”. Parents, even zealous parents, can give in and permit their children to live like pagans for fear (real or imagined) that if they’re forced to practice the faith that that will engender resentment (it might) or hypocrisy (it might) and that open enmity with God is preferable to lukewarm faith (it is most certainly not)!

Conversion is a process, despite justification being a punctiliar crisis event. Yes, people are saved “in a moment” but the process leading up to that moment and building from that moment is, indeed a process. Removing all the practices that allow that process to be effective (removing serious worship and catechism) for the sake of being “authentic” is bad Soteriology, and bad Ecclesiology, based on bad Theology and Pneumatology.

Much more could be said about this, but suffice to say that bad theology has consequences. The popular interpretation of Revelation 3:15,6 is a bad one, that leads to bad theology, that has tragic consequences.

[1] The great theologue Katy Perry notices that some people, while not lukewarm are hot, then cold…yes…then no.

[2] LXX is the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

[3] That’s not a typo. A theological “imaginary” is the theological counterpart to the concept of a “social imaginary”. In essence a theological imaginary is the set of ideas, concepts, symbols, that create our “idea” or “image” of theology. It’s similar to “worldview” but operates at a more sub- and unconscious level.