Revelation 3:15

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
blockquote { border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }

An Exegetical Study of Revelation 3:15-16: The Semantics of “Hot,” “Cold,” and “Lukewarm”

This exegetical study of Revelation 3:15 is based on a b-greek discussion from Mon Apr 1 03:34:01 2002. The initial inquiry proposed an alternative interpretation of the terms ζεστός (hot) and ψυχρός (cold) in Revelation 3:15-16, suggesting that both states might be understood in a positive or beneficial sense within the immediate context. Specifically, ζεστός could refer to hot water used for medicinal purposes, while ψυχρός could denote cool, refreshing drinking water. Under this hypothesis, only the intermediate state of χλιαρός (lukewarm) would represent an undesirable condition, as it lacks any beneficial utility.

The central exegetical issue explored herein is the precise semantic range and contextual implication of the descriptors ψυχρός, ζεστός, and χλιαρός as applied to the church in Laodicea. While traditional interpretations often view ζεστός as spiritual fervor and ψυχρός as spiritual indifference or outright opposition, with χλιαρός representing a complacent and ineffective faith, the discussion raises the possibility that the imagery draws from the practical utility of water in the region. This approach posits that both extremes (hot and cold) were beneficial states, rendering the lukewarm state uniquely reprehensible. This tension between a metaphorical spiritual reading and a more literal, socio-historical contextual understanding forms the crux of the interpretation.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

Rev. 3:15 Οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς εἶ οὔτε ζεστός· ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἦς ἢ ζεστός.

Rev. 3:16 οὕτως ὅτι χλιαρὸς εἶ, καὶ οὔτε ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός, μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• For Revelation 3:15-16, the textual variants between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 are minimal and do not significantly alter the primary lexical or grammatical interpretation of ψυχρός, ζεστός, or χλιαρός.
• The inclusion of εἶ after ψυχρὸς in verse 15 is consistent across both editions and well-supported by manuscript evidence (cf. NA28).
• Variations are primarily orthographical or in punctuation, with no substantive impact on the exegetical questions addressed in this study.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

From a textual critical perspective, the text of Revelation 3:15-16 is remarkably stable. The NA28 critical apparatus indicates no major variants that would challenge the reading of ψυχρός, ζεστός, or χλιαρός. The presence of εἶ in verse 15 is well-attested, ensuring the consistent grammatical structure.

Lexical analysis, however, reveals complexities. BDAG’s entry for ψυχρός (“2. fig. … cool, cold, i.e. without enthusiasm… Rv 3:15a, b, 16”) initially suggests a negative spiritual connotation. Yet, its entry for ζεστός (“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”) implies that “cold” water, being “useful,” is therefore positive. This apparent contradiction within BDAG highlights the interpretive dilemma. Further, the verb ψύχω (“pass. become or grow cold… fig. … ψυγήσεται ἡ ἀγάπη Mt 24:12″) clearly links ‘coldness’ to a negative spiritual state, particularly the waning of love. Conversely, ζέω (“fig. of emotions, anger, love, eagerness… of Apollos… with burning zeal Ac 18:25… maintain the spiritual glow Ro 12:11”) consistently carries positive connotations of fervor and spiritual passion.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel) provides further insight. For ψύχω and ψυχρός (Vol. IX, p. 665ff), the primary figurative sense in the New Testament, as seen in Matthew 24:12, is indeed the cooling or dying of love and spiritual fervor, indicating a negative spiritual condition. Regarding ζέω and ζεστός (Vol. II, p. 880ff), Kittel affirms its use for spiritual zeal and burning passion, consistently portraying a desirable state. The term χλιαρός (Vol. IX, p. 493ff) is understood as “lukewarm,” signifying a state of spiritual indifference, compromise, or ineffectiveness, rendering it inherently undesirable. Kittel’s analysis generally aligns with the traditional spiritual interpretation, where coldness implies spiritual deadness or opposition, and hotness signifies fervent devotion.

A crucial element in the discussion, emphasized by scholarly commentary and raised within the b-greek exchange, is the geographical context of Laodicea. Unlike nearby Hierapolis, which was known for its hot medicinal springs, and Colossae, which had sources of refreshing cold water, Laodicea received its water via an aqueduct. By the time this water reached the city, it was notoriously lukewarm and unpalatable, known for its purgative properties. This socio-historical context suggests that both hot (medicinal, beneficial) and cold (refreshing, beneficial) water had distinct positive uses in the region. The Laodicean church’s spiritual state is thus likened to their own city’s water supply: neither invigoratingly cold nor therapeutically hot, but rather nauseatingly lukewarm and spiritually useless. This contextual reading, according to some, provides a robust explanation that “trumps a detailed lexical examination,” aligning with an Occam’s Razor principle.

Translation Variants

The Greek text in Revelation 3:15-16 employs straightforward grammatical structures. Verse 15 begins with an indicative statement, “οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς εἶ οὔτε ζεστός” (I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot). This is followed by an optative clause, “ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἦς ἢ ζεστός” (Would that you were cold or hot), expressing a strong wish or desire. Verse 16 then provides the consequence in a causal clause, “οὕτως ὅτι χλιαρὸς εἶ, καὶ οὔτε ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός” (So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold), leading to the future indicative statement of divine judgment, “μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου” (I am about to vomit you out of my mouth).

Rhetorically, the passage utilizes several powerful devices:

• Juxtaposition and Antithesis: The three states—hot, cold, and lukewarm—are immediately presented in stark contrast. The core rhetorical strategy lies in placing the Laodiceans in the undesirable middle ground, highlighting their lack of definitive spiritual character. The wish for them to be either “cold or hot” establishes a strong antithesis to their current lukewarm state, regardless of whether “cold” is interpreted positively or negatively in itself.
• Metaphor: The primary metaphor is that of water temperature, applied to the spiritual condition of the church. This vivid imagery communicates abstract spiritual states in a tangible and relatable manner, drawing upon the local context of Laodicea’s notorious water supply.
• Hyperbole: The declaration “I am about to vomit you out of my mouth” is a hyperbolic expression of utter rejection and disgust. It emphasizes the severity of God’s disapproval of their lukewarmness, conveying a sense of nausea and repulsion that transcends mere disappointment.
• Irony: Revelation 3:17 immediately follows, revealing a profound irony: the Laodiceans believe themselves to be rich and self-sufficient, needing nothing, yet in God’s eyes, they are “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.” Their spiritual lukewarmness is rooted in a complacent self-deception, contrasting sharply with their material prosperity.

The rhetorical force of the passage emphasizes that spiritual lukewarmness is not merely a neutral state, but an active rejection that provokes divine disgust. The crucial point is the *lack of utility* or *distinctive character* of the lukewarm, which is worse than having a clear (even if negative) spiritual identity or a clearly beneficial spiritual function.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegesis of Revelation 3:15-16 reveals a nuanced understanding of the terms ψυχρός, ζεστός, and χλιαρός. While the lexical evidence from BDAG presents a seeming contradiction regarding the connotation of ψυχρός, Kittel and the broader New Testament usage of ψύχω lean towards a negative spiritual sense for ‘cold’ (i.e., lacking fervor). However, the socio-historical context of Laodicea’s water supply strongly argues for both ‘hot’ (medicinal) and ‘cold’ (refreshing) as beneficial states, making ‘lukewarm’ the uniquely useless and repulsive condition.

The initial proposition that both ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ might be positive states (beneficial water) holds significant contextual weight. However, the internal consistency of the passage, particularly the connection to verses like Matthew 24:12 (“love will grow cold”) and the desire for repentance in Revelation 3:19, suggests that while ‘cold’ water may be beneficial, ‘spiritual coldness’ is generally undesirable. The key is that either extreme—fervent devotion or utter spiritual indifference—is preferable to the hypocritical, self-deceiving, and ultimately useless state of lukewarmness. Being ‘cold’ in one’s faith, if recognized, allows for the possibility of repentance and re-ignition (as suggested in the source discussion), whereas ‘lukewarmness’ often implies a complacent self-deception that precludes such a realization.

Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions attempt to capture these interpretive nuances:

1. “I know your deeds, that you are neither truly cold nor truly hot. Oh, that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.”
   This translation prioritizes the traditional spiritual interpretation, where ‘cold’ implies spiritual indifference or opposition, and ‘hot’ signifies fervent zeal. The Lord expresses a desire for clarity of commitment, even if it is against Him, rather than complacent apathy.

2. “I know your deeds, that you are neither invigoratingly cold nor therapeutically hot. I wish you were either refreshingly cold or medicinally hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”
   This rendering emphasizes the socio-historical and functional aspects of water in the Laodicean context. Both cold and hot water had beneficial uses, while lukewarm water was useless and nauseating, thus metaphorically condemning the Laodiceans’ spiritual uselessness.

3. “I know your deeds, that you are neither genuinely cold nor ardently hot. Would that you were clearly cold or zealously hot! But because you are merely lukewarm, neither truly hot nor genuinely cold, I am about to reject you utterly.”
   This hybrid translation aims to balance the spiritual metaphor with the pragmatic utility of the water imagery. ‘Clearly cold’ suggests a definitive, even if negative, spiritual stance, which, if acknowledged, could lead to repentance (v. 19). It captures the idea that any distinct spiritual state is preferable to a self-deceptive and non-committal lukewarmness.