Rev. 3:15 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Apr 1 03:34:01 EST 2002
Rev. 3:3a Eta + Upsilon diphthong > OIDA SOU TA ERGA hOTI OUTE YUCROS EI OUTE ZESTOS> OFELON YUCROS HS H ZESTOS…> > Because both ZESTOS and YUCROS were desirable states, I wonder> if we can understand both in a positive sense.> > ZESTOS being the hot water used for medicinal purposes.> In its initial state, it had a beneficial purpose. So> too with YUCROS. As cold (in its initial state),> it was a cool, refreshing drink…. having a beneficial> affect on those who partook.> > Can we understand YUCROS in a positive sense? I have always> heard YUCROS in the sense of: the Lord would rather you be> either on fire/hot for the Lord, or wanting nothing whatsoever> to do with him (cold). But it seems to me that since the Lord> desired these Laodiceans to be at either end of this spectrum,> that he was not contrasting positive and negative states, but> beneficial states, which existed at both ends.> > Therefore, the KLIAROS being the only “unnatural” or non-beneficial> state.I think your traditional understanding is more correct, although it isquestion what can happen to a cold person.BDAG is self-contradictory in its dealing with this problem.First, the entry on YUCROS has”2. fig. (trag., Hdt.+; Jos., Bell. 1, 357; 6, 16, C. Ap. 2, 255) cool,cold, i.e. without enthusiasm (Epict. 3, 15, 7; Lucian, Tim. 2 …) Rv3:15a, b, 16″This looks rather negative.For the verb YUCW it says:”Make cool or cold (Philo, Leg. All. 1, 5) pass. become or grow cold (Hdt.et al.; Philo, Cher. 88; Jos., Ant. 7, 343), go out, be extinguished of fireand flame (Pla., Critias 120b) fig. (cf. Jos., Bell. 5, 472 of hope)YUGHSETAI hH AGAPH Mt 24:12. M-M.*”It appears to be a negative connotation when the (first) love disappears ora person becomes cold in terms of love.Second, the entry for ZESTOS has:”hot; in Rv 3:15f the underlying idea is that water can be used when it ishot or cold, but when lukewarm it is unpalatable and will be spat out.”So, here they say that even what is cold is useful and therefore positive Iassume, where it was negative above.For the verb ZEW they say:”fig. of emotions, anger, love, eagerness to do good or evil (trag.; Pla.,Rep. 4 p. 440c; Charito 1, 5, 1; Plut., Mor. 1088f; 4 Macc 18:20; Philo,Mos. 2, 280) … of Apollos before he became a full-fledged member of theChristian community with burning zeal Ac 18:25… But the admonition toChristians to be TWi PNEUMATI ZEONTES Ro 12:11 directs them to maintain thespiritual glow.”Looking at the verbs, I get the clear impression that being burning withlove and in the Holy Spirit is good and desirable, supported by ZHLEUE in3:19. But being cold in terms of love is negative.Of course, cold water is nice to drink. But did they drink hot (boiling)water before the advent of tea leaves and coffee beans? How could it bepositive to drink something hot? I think the “spitting out of the mouth” isan idiom for rejection that does not allow us to transfer the “cooled love”idea to cold water, good for drinking.The lukewarm idea is further described in 3:17. The problem is that theythink they have everything (that is they think they are “hot”, burning withzeal”), but in fact they are from God’s perspective cold, naked, lackingeverything. The lukewarm idea seems to be a result of a mixture of hot andcold. They may appear hot on the outside but are cold on the inside. If onlythey realized that the fire in their hearts had been extinguished, it wouldbe possible to be re-ignited. Therefore, realizing one’s coldness is betterthan complacent lukewarmness. If I know I have grown cold, I have thepossibility for repenting and becoming full of burning zeal again (v. 19).Iver Larsen
Rev. 3:3aEta + Upsilon diphthong
Rev. 3:15 Eric S. Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Tue Apr 2 10:16:08 EST 2002
Mark 9:2 Textbooks for Principles of Exegesis Class If the geographic/water-source comments re: Colossae and Hieropolisvis-a-vis Laodicea that I referenced in my earlier response are in factcorrect, I would think that such an explanation would trump a detailedlexical examination of the meanings of “cold” and “hot.” Kind of theOccam’s Razor principle.> > OIDA SOU TA ERGA hOTI OUTE YUCROS EI OUTE ZESTOS> > OFELON YUCROS HS H ZESTOS…> >> > Because both ZESTOS and YUCROS were desirable states, I wonder> > if we can understand both in a positive sense.> >> > ZESTOS being the hot water used for medicinal purposes.> > In its initial state, it had a beneficial purpose. So> > too with YUCROS. As cold (in its initial state),> > it was a cool, refreshing drink…. having a beneficial> > affect on those who partook.> >> > Can we understand YUCROS in a positive sense? I have always> > heard YUCROS in the sense of: the Lord would rather you be> > either on fire/hot for the Lord, or wanting nothing whatsoever> > to do with him (cold). But it seems to me that since the Lord> > desired these Laodiceans to be at either end of this spectrum,> > that he was not contrasting positive and negative states, but> > beneficial states, which existed at both ends.> >> > Therefore, the KLIAROS being the only “unnatural” or non-beneficial> > state.> > I think your traditional understanding is more correct, although it is> question what can happen to a cold person.> BDAG is self-contradictory in its dealing with this problem.> First, the entry on YUCROS has> “2. fig. (trag., Hdt.+; Jos., Bell. 1, 357; 6, 16, C. Ap. 2, 255) cool,> cold, i.e. without enthusiasm (Epict. 3, 15, 7; Lucian, Tim. 2 …) Rv> 3:15a, b, 16″> This looks rather negative.> For the verb YUCW it says:> “Make cool or cold (Philo, Leg. All. 1, 5) pass. become or grow cold (Hdt.> et al.; Philo, Cher. 88; Jos., Ant. 7, 343), go out, be extinguished of fire> and flame (Pla., Critias 120b) fig. (cf. Jos., Bell. 5, 472 of hope)> YUGHSETAI hH AGAPH Mt 24:12. M-M.*”> > It appears to be a negative connotation when the (first) love disappears or> a person becomes cold in terms of love.> > Second, the entry for ZESTOS has:> “hot; in Rv 3:15f the underlying idea is that water can be used when it is> hot or cold, but when lukewarm it is unpalatable and will be spat out.”> So, here they say that even what is cold is useful and therefore positive I> assume, where it was negative above.> For the verb ZEW they say:> “fig. of emotions, anger, love, eagerness to do good or evil (trag.; Pla.,> Rep. 4 p. 440c; Charito 1, 5, 1; Plut., Mor. 1088f; 4 Macc 18:20; Philo,> Mos. 2, 280) … of Apollos before he became a full-fledged member of the> Christian community with burning zeal Ac 18:25… But the admonition to> Christians to be TWi PNEUMATI ZEONTES Ro 12:11 directs them to maintain the> spiritual glow.”> > Looking at the verbs, I get the clear impression that being burning with> love and in the Holy Spirit is good and desirable, supported by ZHLEUE in> 3:19. But being cold in terms of love is negative.> > Of course, cold water is nice to drink. But did they drink hot (boiling)> water before the advent of tea leaves and coffee beans? How could it be> positive to drink something hot? I think the “spitting out of the mouth” is> an idiom for rejection that does not allow us to transfer the “cooled love”> idea to cold water, good for drinking.> > The lukewarm idea is further described in 3:17. The problem is that they> think they have everything (that is they think they are “hot”, burning with> zeal”), but in fact they are from God’s perspective cold, naked, lacking> everything. The lukewarm idea seems to be a result of a mixture of hot and> cold. They may appear hot on the outside but are cold on the inside. If only> they realized that the fire in their hearts had been extinguished, it would> be possible to be re-ignited. Therefore, realizing one’s coldness is better> than complacent lukewarmness. If I know I have grown cold, I have the> possibility for repenting and becoming full of burning zeal again (v. 19).> > Iver Larsen
Mark 9:2Textbooks for Principles of Exegesis Class
Rev. 3:15 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Tue Apr 2 17:30:37 EST 2002
Participant Reference in John 18:15 Pronunciation and subjunctives In a message dated 4/2/2002 10:15:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, eweiss at gte.net writes:If the geographic/water-source comments re: Colossae and Hieropolisvis-a-vis Laodicea that I referenced in my earlier response are in factcorrect, I would think that such an explanation would trump a detailedlexical examination of the meanings of “cold” and “hot.” Kind of theOccam’s Razor principle._______________________I expect that Carl would rather that we not continue this onlist since it doesn’t directly deal with the Greek text (perhaps he will soon request that it be termnated). While there is still time, however, I would like to request that, if you can provide some source for the details you allege, I would like to be informed regarding them (offlist is recommended).gfsomsel
Participant Reference in John 18:15Pronunciation and subjunctives
Tim Anderson Hope this answers your question from the Greek text:
I am studying the book of Revelation, now I am at the Letter to the Laodicians, question?
Is this “vomiting” which is a rejection from Christ of those he is writing, a final rejection. In others words, are they now Lost?
Appreciate your thoughts.
Rev. 3:15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.
16″So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” NKJV.
and here is the Rev 3 16 discussion too http://probible.net/revelation-316/
Thank you Troy, will give it considerable study.
Please ask any questions that come up Thanks
I see in this verse, and surrounding context, one of the most concrete arguments against Calvinisn, or “once saved always saved”. Am I wrong? What would a Calvinist say?
What is Jesus saying to the church is more important
Agree, and what he is saying to the church is contrary to what some teach “once you belong to the church, you have nothing else to do”.
So examining the Greek text we reach the actualization of a future tense. More of a warning than a final judgment; though some of the pronunciations over the 7 churches do sound like pretty eternal to me.
EMESAI from: EMEW. The standard tranlsation from BDAG/BGDA, LSJ, (in TWNT is absent) is: to vomit, throw up. In one of polish literal translation I have met also not eufemistic (colloquially or vulgar rather)
The greek word for spit is PTUW and EKTTUW to spit [out] in token of disgust, a figurative expression for rejection with disgust. In Aeschylus we find QEOPTUSTWi which looks like a similar expression in reference to divine displeasure and rejection but may be something more like english expletive damnation
To be rejected by Christ is to be Lost, is my understanding. Thank you Troy, the info served to confirm what I have gathered and believe.
Tim Law I find the Comparison between rev. 3:15-16 with Matt. 7:21-25 quite inadequate here. Mat 7 is a final judgment, Rev 3 is a conditional clause with definite future fulfillment One is plural perfect + imperative; the other is future conditional
Troy Day simply put Matt. 7:26-27 qualifies who is lukewarm and who isn’t. Thanks for your input.
In Mt Matt. 7:26 Jesus clearly states – I never knew you The judgment is final – No hope or condition given
In Rev 3:15 Jesus clearly states I know your deeds (not never knew you) – the pre-judgment is future and conditional
Thanks Men, my coclusion is as Troy stated and for me is the key, the one was “future conditional” Appreciate the feedback.
Hope you preach well out of it 🙂
Tim Anderson Hope this answers your question from the Greek text:
I am studying the book of Revelation, now I am at the Letter to the Laodicians, question?
Is this “vomiting” which is a rejection from Christ of those he is writing, a final rejection. In others words, are they now Lost?
Appreciate your thoughts.
Rev. 3:15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.
16“So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” NKJV.
and here is the Rev 3 16 discussion too http://probible.net/revelation-316/
Thank you Troy, will give it considerable study.
Please ask any questions that come up Thanks
I see in this verse, and surrounding context, one of the most concrete arguments against Calvinisn, or “once saved always saved”. Am I wrong? What would a Calvinist say?
What is Jesus saying to the church is more important
Agree, and what he is saying to the church is contrary to what some teach “once you belong to the church, you have nothing else to do”.
So examining the Greek text we reach the actualization of a future tense. More of a warning than a final judgment; though some of the pronunciations over the 7 churches do sound like pretty eternal to me.
EMESAI from: EMEW. The standard tranlsation from BDAG/BGDA, LSJ, (in TWNT is absent) is: to vomit, throw up. In one of polish literal translation I have met also not eufemistic (colloquially or vulgar rather)
The greek word for spit is PTUW and EKTTUW to spit [out] in token of disgust, a figurative expression for rejection with disgust. In Aeschylus we find QEOPTUSTWi which looks like a similar expression in reference to divine displeasure and rejection but may be something more like english expletive damnation
To be rejected by Christ is to be Lost, is my understanding. Thank you Troy, the info served to confirm what I have gathered and believe.
Tim Law I find the Comparison between rev. 3:15-16 with Matt. 7:21-25 quite inadequate here. Mat 7 is a final judgment, Rev 3 is a conditional clause with definite future fulfillment One is plural perfect + imperative; the other is future conditional
Troy Day simply put Matt. 7:26-27 qualifies who is lukewarm and who isn’t. Thanks for your input.
In Mt Matt. 7:26 Jesus clearly states – I never knew you The judgment is final – No hope or condition given
In Rev 3:15 Jesus clearly states I know your deeds (not never knew you) – the pre-judgment is future and conditional
Thanks Men, my coclusion is as Troy stated and for me is the key, the one was “future conditional” Appreciate the feedback.
Hope you preach well out of it 🙂