PDA

View Full Version : The Luke Warm Church



The Parson
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:16 AM
I first thought to put this in the End Times area but decided against it because of it's relevence to our Christian walk today.

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Let's look at a Biblical warning to the church of Laodicea and see what ya'll believe is mean't by the Savior when He said "thou art lukewarn". You'd be surprised at the different definitions folks give... Who wants to go first?

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:24 AM
5513χλιαρός [chliaros /khlee·ar·os/] adj (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn1). From chlio (to warm); TDNT (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn2) 2:876; TDNTA (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn3) 296; GK (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn4) 5950; AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn5) translates as “lukewarm” once. 1 tepid, lukewarm. 2 metaph. of the condition of the soul wretchedly fluctuating between a torpor and a fervour of love.

moonglow
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:30 AM
My understanding on what lukewarm is...it being neither against Christ, such as an atheist is...nor really being for Christ...its like someone saying "Oh sure I believe in God and even pray sometimes..." but they don't do anything in this regard. Its not evident in their life.

God bless

The Parson
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:50 AM
5513χλιαρός [chliaros /khlee·ar·os/] adj (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn1). From chlio (to warm); TDNT (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn2) 2:876; TDNTA (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn3) 296; GK (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn4) 5950; AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn5) translates as “lukewarm” once. 1 tepid, lukewarm. 2 metaph. of the condition of the soul wretchedly fluctuating between a torpor and a fervour of love.
Much ablidged Peter. We pretty much got the gist. It is properly translated as lukewarm. I'm wanting to hear what some 21st century brothers and sisters think it is my friend.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 2nd 2008, 01:43 AM
Much ablidged Peter. We pretty much got the gist. It is properly translated as lukewarm. I'm wanting to hear what some 21st century brothers and sisters think it is my friend.

I figured I would go with the safe answer first:lol::lol::lol:

My take on it is the church that doesn't take a stand on any issue. They know what the Bible says about what is right and what is wrong but they are afraid to either speak for or against it. The sermons are all watered down to take the "fire" out of the message so no one will get offended. In other words don't tell them that what they are doing is wrong. They don't tell people that there is a Heaven and hell and you will spend eternity in one of those places. The choice is theirs. In my search for a church I have been to many of these churches and I am truly worried for them.

Seeker of truth
Mar 2nd 2008, 01:47 AM
To me lukewarm means not totally committed to Him. One foot in the world and one foot in the Church.

militarywife
Mar 2nd 2008, 01:49 AM
Lukewarm to me is when one claims the benefits of Jesus yet wont completely surrender.

ravi4u2
Mar 2nd 2008, 02:06 AM
To understand the passage properly, we must first understand what the writer had intended by cold and hot. The Greek word for cold there is 'psychros'. By saying psychros there, the wrriter immediately draws attention to what Jesus said in Matthew 10, "“He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” So, the cold there is speaking of a refreshing.

The hot there in Greek is 'zestos', which is drawn from the root word of zeo, which means 'fervent'. A good passage to understand fervent is Acts 18, "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John."

So, now since the Church in Laodicea is neither refreshing nor fervent, the Lord will throw up the Laodiceans.

Teke
Mar 2nd 2008, 02:07 AM
lukewarm= indifferent, without interest or concern; not caring, apathetic....

moonglow
Mar 2nd 2008, 02:12 AM
I figured I would go with the safe answer first:lol::lol::lol:

My take on it is the church that doesn't take a stand on any issue. They know what the Bible says about what is right and what is wrong but they are afraid to either speak for or against it. The sermons are all watered down to take the "fire" out of the message so no one will get offended. In other words don't tell them that what they are doing is wrong. They don't tell people that there is a Heaven and hell and you will spend eternity in one of those places. The choice is theirs. In my search for a church I have been to many of these churches and I am truly worried for them.

I guess its different around here cause I have heard plenty of sermons on this very passage and the warnings of the dangers of being a lukewarm church. That is why I know it so well! Pastors use this here all the time!

God bless

The Parson
Mar 2nd 2008, 02:28 AM
So if lukewarm two things must have happened:
They were being heated up but someone turned off the stove.
They were hot already but moved away from the fire.I mean you gotta start off with some heat in the first place. And everyone of your answers said it well but what would make the brethren become luke warm? What would happen that would cause either the heat to be turned off or the one who is lukewarm moving away from the fire? Specifically??? Modern day occurances??? Multiple doctrines??? Multiple Bible versions??? Or trust in our modern comforts??? What?

VerticalReality
Mar 2nd 2008, 02:38 AM
To understand the passage properly, we must first understand what the writer had intended by cold and hot. The Greek word for cold there is 'psychros'. By saying psychros there, the wrriter immediately draws attention to what Jesus said in Matthew 10, "“He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” So, the cold there is speaking of a refreshing.

The hot there in Greek is 'zestos', which is drawn from the root word of zeo, which means 'fervent'. A good passage to understand fervent is Acts 18, "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John."

So, now since the Church in Laodicea is neither refreshing nor fervent, the Lord will throw up the Laodiceans.

I agree with this interpretation. Immediately these days folks look at the terms "hot" and "cold" and they assume that hot is good and cold is bad. I do not believe this is correct. As you can see by the passage, Jesus didn't have a problem with folks being cold. He wouldn't spit those folks out. I thought about that and then thought about some folks' interpretation there and I couldn't understand why so many believed that cold could be a bad thing if Jesus was accepting of it.

The problem with the Laodiceans were that they were half-hearted. As the passage says, they really thought they were in need of nothing. They thought they had everything figured out and they had no reason to seek the Lord. It reminds me of the Scripture . . .



Galatians 6:3
For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 2nd 2008, 02:42 AM
So if lukewarm two things must have happened:

They were being heated up but someone turned off the stove.
They were hot already but moved away from the fire.I mean you gotta start off with some heat in the first place. And everyone of your answers said it well but what would make the brethren become luke warm? What would happen that would cause either the heat to be turned off or the one who is lukewarm moving away from the fire? Specifically??? Modern day occurances??? Multiple doctrines??? Multiple Bible versions??? Or trust in our modern comforts??? What?

You're a cop, right? I bet you see the answer every day. NO CONSEQUENCES!!! In your line of work I bet you see the guy that should go to jail for a long time get off with just a slap on the wrist. It's the same in the church. They are preaching no condemnation. People need to know that there are consequences. Instead we blame everything on a disease so no one has to change. It's the I can't help it attitude and it's not my fault mentality. We need to start calling a spade a spade and tell them their issue is sin and there is only one way to get rid of it.

moonglow
Mar 2nd 2008, 03:00 AM
So if lukewarm two things must have happened:
They were being heated up but someone turned off the stove.
They were hot already but moved away from the fire.I mean you gotta start off with some heat in the first place. And everyone of your answers said it well but what would make the brethren become luke warm? What would happen that would cause either the heat to be turned off or the one who is lukewarm moving away from the fire? Specifically??? Modern day occurances??? Multiple doctrines??? Multiple Bible versions??? Or trust in our modern comforts??? What?

Well that is true...never thought of it that way that they were heated up one time but the burner got turned off.

From what I have seen in those that drift away from God its due to all sorts of reasons. From the a tragic loss...watching a loved one die from a terrible disease and no healing coming and then they blame God or feel He was never there to start with. From the loss of everything! so many have lost their homes in this past year due to fires, floods, finical reasons..on and on. Loss of hope things will get better though they prayed their hearts out...

I think also the loss of faith in other Christians and the church. The church not being there for them in a difficult time, the abuse of scripture that at times deeply wounds people instead of lifting them up. Of the church and people ignoring clear scriptures on certain things and these people know its wrong but don't know what to do about it. I see people turned off and driven away from God solely due to the bittering that goes on between us at times.

Then of course there are more simple reasons...getting back into sin and finding the pleasure in that. In never connecting with God. In getting so busy with life they can't find the time to pray or read their bibles and stay connected. Of having a spouse that doesn't believe and tired of trying to live one way, but being pulled to another way. I think the list is about as different as people are different as the reason to why they lost their heat.

All I can do is offer ideas and my thoughts on this.

God bless

TrustingFollower
Mar 2nd 2008, 03:09 AM
The parable of the sower is what comes to mind with your question.

Matthew 13:1-9 (NKJV)


1 On the same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the sea. 2 And great multitudes were gathered together to Him, so that He got into a boat and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. 6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. 8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

I think Jesus is talking about lukewarm Christians in verses 5-6. We all know people who will go to church on Sunday morning and be all fired up, then go out for lunch with them and they start acting very unchristian like when they get slow service at the restaurant.

The verses quoted from Revelation make an example out of the church in Laodicea, but this relates to all of us. We need to take heed to insure we are fully on board with Christ like in Matthew 13:23


23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2008, 04:21 AM
You're a cop, right? I bet you see the answer every day. NO CONSEQUENCES!!! In your line of work I bet you see the guy that should go to jail for a long time get off with just a slap on the wrist. It's the same in the church. They are preaching no condemnation. People need to know that there are consequences. Instead we blame everything on a disease so no one has to change. It's the I can't help it attitude and it's not my fault mentality. We need to start calling a spade a spade and tell them their issue is sin and there is only one way to get rid of it.

And I think we can indeed pair that closely with pride, self justification.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 2nd 2008, 04:32 AM
And I think we can indeed pair that closely with pride, self justification.

Sure, nobody likes it when the finger is pointed at them or when the preacher is stepping on their toes but that's what needs to happen. It's just like in football when a big lineman is holding. Until the referee throws the flag that lineman is going to keep holding all game. Those churches need to start throwing some flags!!

The Parson
Mar 2nd 2008, 05:13 AM
You're a cop, right? I bet you see the answer every day. NO CONSEQUENCES!!! In your line of work I bet you see the guy that should go to jail for a long time get off with just a slap on the wrist. It's the same in the church. They are preaching no condemnation. People need to know that there are consequences. Instead we blame everything on a disease so no one has to change. It's the I can't help it attitude and it's not my fault mentality. We need to start calling a spade a spade and tell them their issue is sin and there is only one way to get rid of it.Well yes. It drives me up the wall going to court each week (I'm the court liason) to see more of I'm sorry I was caught instead of I'm sorry I did what I did. And then to see the judge literally let some get away with murder so to speak.

Then there are those that say that God made them the way they are because of their mental illness. I'm not saying there isn't mental illness. Sure there is but if what I see in court is an example of true mi, 4 out of 6 people are mentally ill.

Then, in the church we see every excuse in the world for not showing up except maybe on a sunny day on Sunday morning. 5 people in the family and the entire family needs to stay home on Sunday because the youngest has a rash. OK, Don't get me started on that one.


I agree with this interpretation. Immediately these days folks look at the terms "hot" and "cold" and they assume that hot is good and cold is bad. I do not believe this is correct. As you can see by the passage, Jesus didn't have a problem with folks being cold. He wouldn't spit those folks out. I thought about that and then thought about some folks' interpretation there and I couldn't understand why so many believed that cold could be a bad thing if Jesus was accepting of it.

The problem with the Laodiceans were that they were half-hearted. As the passage says, they really thought they were in need of nothing. They thought they had everything figured out and they had no reason to seek the Lord. It reminds me of the Scripture . . .OK, let me get this straight. Cold is good and hot is bad??? :o Huh??? Cold and sluggish beats hot and moving hands down? Naw, gonna take a bit more convincing to get that one across my friend. I don't believe the Savior is saying cold is a good thingey. He just prefers it over a luke warm, yeah, I done heard the gospel, ok preacher, entertain me, look for me when you see me coming lukewarm Christian. That is almost reprobate don't ya think???

VerticalReality
Mar 2nd 2008, 01:45 PM
OK, let me get this straight. Cold is good and hot is bad??? :o Huh??? Cold and sluggish beats hot and moving hands down? Naw, gonna take a bit more convincing to get that one across my friend. I don't believe the Savior is saying cold is a good thingey. He just prefers it over a luke warm, yeah, I done heard the gospel, ok preacher, entertain me, look for me when you see me coming lukewarm Christian. That is almost reprobate don't ya think???

No, cold is good and hot is good. It is the lukewarm that is bad. Now, the analogy Jesus is using here is that of a drink. He's saying that He will spit the lukewarm out of His mouth, but the hot or cold He will drink of. Let's use water, for example. Is cold water bad or is it good? Most folks will tell you that a nice tall glass of cold ice water is very refreshing. How about hot water, is that bad? No, hot water is used for many things and it is good. It is the lukewarm water that really serves no purpose.

To say that the cold means something bad is really just adding assumption to the Word. Jesus never says it is bad, and to be honest, to say it is bad really makes no sense. Jesus never says there is anything wrong with the cold, and He most certainly will drink of it. How could this be if the cold is bad?

I just think many folks have been taught for a while now that the hot means someone on fire for God and the cold means someone unsaved. That's just a lot of assumption that is mentioned nowhere in that passage. Jesus doesn't have a problem with the hot or the cold. Therefore, I do not think the hot represents born again, Spirit-filled Christians and the cold represents unsaved folks who are going to hell.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 2nd 2008, 02:04 PM
No, cold is good and hot is good. It is the lukewarm that is bad. Now, the analogy Jesus is using here is that of a drink. He's saying that He will spit the lukewarm out of His mouth, but the hot or cold He will drink of. Let's use water, for example. Is cold water bad or is it good? Most folks will tell you that a nice tall glass of cold ice water is very refreshing. How about hot water, is that bad? No, hot water is used for many things and it is good. It is the lukewarm water that really serves no purpose.

To say that the cold means something bad is really just adding assumption to the Word. Jesus never says it is bad, and to be honest, to say it is bad really makes no sense. Jesus never says there is anything wrong with the cold, and He most certainly will drink of it. How could this be if the cold is bad?

I just think many folks have been taught for a while now that the hot means someone on fire for God and the cold means someone unsaved. That's just a lot of assumption that is mentioned nowhere in that passage. Jesus doesn't have a problem with the hot or the cold. Therefore, I do not think the hot represents born again, Spirit-filled Christians and the cold represents unsaved folks who are going to hell.

Just because He says "I wish you were hot or cold" doesn't mean that cold is good. Take a look at the following scripture (it happens to be my username:D)...

2 Peter 2
20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Peter, under the inspiration of God, says that it would be better for them NOT to have known the way of righteousness but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. I think the same is true of the lukewarm passage.

Stefen
Mar 2nd 2008, 02:39 PM
So if lukewarm two things must have happened:

They were being heated up but someone turned off the stove.
They were hot already but moved away from the fire.I mean you gotta start off with some heat in the first place. And everyone of your answers said it well but what would make the brethren become luke warm? What would happen that would cause either the heat to be turned off or the one who is lukewarm moving away from the fire? Specifically??? Modern day occurances??? Multiple doctrines??? Multiple Bible versions??? Or trust in our modern comforts??? What?

Religion..................... it has replaced relationship and position.

divaD
Mar 2nd 2008, 03:21 PM
I believe we need to look for the clues in these verses.

Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

So why is the church of the Laodiceans lukewarm? The next verse tells us why.

Revelation 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:


Also I believe there is a clue in here to cold: "and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked".

And I believe in the next verse is a clue to hot: "18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.


So adding all of this up, what have we learned? We know that being lukewarm, that they have need of nothing. By being cold they would realize that they were wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, and in need of hot. By being hot, they have become the opposite of cold. So to sum it all up. Lukewarm means to have need for nothing, and to be blind
and not even know it. Cold means to comprehend that you are in need of hot.

MMC
Mar 2nd 2008, 03:43 PM
i've always thought that being lukewarm meant you were lacking in zeal, either for or against Christ. It is apathy and complacency.

threebigrocks
Mar 2nd 2008, 05:10 PM
I believe we need to look for the clues in these verses.

Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

So why is the church of the Laodiceans lukewarm? The next verse tells us why.

Revelation 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:


Also I believe there is a clue in here to cold: "and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked".

And I believe in the next verse is a clue to hot: "18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.


So adding all of this up, what have we learned? We know that being lukewarm, that they have need of nothing. By being cold they would realize that they were wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, and in need of hot. By being hot, they have become the opposite of cold. So to sum it all up. Lukewarm means to have need for nothing, and to be blind
and not even know it. Cold means to comprehend that you are in need of hot.

Indeed, it's not as though Christ himself didn't tell us these very things. He had told us what equates righteousness. It's an individual choice, not a corporate one. Until there are individual choices to live a true Christ like life, truly following Him, purity, and then those coming together corporately there is going to still be those who pass the blame for their actions. Or lack of them.

Matthew 25



32"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
39'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
40"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'
41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
44"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
45"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

VerticalReality
Mar 2nd 2008, 08:35 PM
Just because He says "I wish you were hot or cold" doesn't mean that cold is good. Take a look at the following scripture (it happens to be my username:D)...

2 Peter 2
20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Peter, under the inspiration of God, says that it would be better for them NOT to have known the way of righteousness but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. I think the same is true of the lukewarm passage.

I really don't see what that passage of Scripture says about the "cold" spoken of in Revelation.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 2nd 2008, 09:24 PM
I really don't see what that passage of Scripture says about the "cold" spoken of in Revelation.

No, the word "cold" is not in there.

I'm just saying I think this is the same kind of principle. Peter is saying that it would be better for them not to know the way of righteousness(which we both know is not a good choice) but it is a better choice than to know the way of righteousness and turn from it.

I see this kind of comparison...

Cold=Not knowing the way
Lukewarm=Knowing to way and turning from it
Hot=Knowing the way

ravi4u2
Mar 3rd 2008, 12:26 AM
No, the word "cold" is not in there.

I'm just saying I think this is the same kind of principle. Peter is saying that it would be better for them not to know the way of righteousness(which we both know is not a good choice) but it is a better choice than to know the way of righteousness and turn from it.

I see this kind of comparison...

Cold=Not knowing to way
Lukewarm=Knowing to way and turning from it
Hot=Knowing the wayBut if 'cold' means 'not knowing to way'. how did the Laodiceans become the Church. Did not they have to know the Way, Christ Jesus to be His Church?

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 12:44 AM
So if lukewarm two things must have happened:
They were being heated up but someone turned off the stove.
They were hot already but moved away from the fire.I mean you gotta start off with some heat in the first place. And everyone of your answers said it well but what would make the brethren become luke warm? What would happen that would cause either the heat to be turned off or the one who is lukewarm moving away from the fire? Specifically??? Modern day occurances??? Multiple doctrines??? Multiple Bible versions??? Or trust in our modern comforts??? What?

I think the answer to that is pride. When we get to a place we can't see our need for God, we are bound to become lukewarm.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 12:45 AM
5513χλιαρός [chliaros /khlee·ar·os/] adj (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn1). From chlio (to warm); TDNT (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn2) 2:876; TDNTA (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn3) 296; GK (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn4) 5950; AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1557546#_ftn5) translates as “lukewarm” once. 1 tepid, lukewarm. 2 metaph. of the condition of the soul wretchedly fluctuating between a torpor and a fervour of love.


The second part of that definition is interesting. Does it mean to actually fluctuate between being hot for God and cold for God but not staying in either place? :hmm:

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 12:55 AM
I like what Ravi said about a cold drink being refreshing and a hot drink revealing fervent.

Think of the process folks often go through. Ever get around a new believer? They don't know much, but boy are they refreshing! Man, it is exciting to just listen to their joy. God begins to warm them up and we all can see it. Fervency of calling and wanting to please God occurs. This especially happens when we are filled with the Holy Spirit (and fits with Ravi's explanation of being fervent in Spirit).

But what of the riches God gave Israel in Judges? Eventually, the move away from him because their needs are met. Or the trials in the desert where Israel thought God had abandoned them? For Laodicea, it seems more that wealth was a problem for her. She began to think she was OK and settled into the rut of a comfortable life. Losing her vision and fervency for God, she began to perish.

She was no longer being refined by the fire of trials. Maybe she had stopped giving at a sacrificial level. But what's most interesting, is that Jesus wanted to dine with her and was knocking on her heart. And this was a church!

So we know the church was meeting without Christ and so was neither refreshing nor fervent. Been there personally myself and have been to churches that felt that way.

Just thinking out loud. :hmm:

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 12:55 AM
But if 'cold' means 'not knowing to way'. how did the Laodiceans become the Church. Did not they have to know the Way, Christ Jesus to be His Church?

I'm not saying this is the same, just the same principle. I'm just showing that just because Jesus said I wish you were hot or cold that doesn't imply that cold is good. Cold in no way relates to this scripture.

Just trying to show that Peter uses the same concept of comparison as Jesus uses in the lukewarm message. Earlier posts suggest that cold is good and I think otherwise.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 12:57 AM
I'm not saying this is the same, just the same principle. I'm just showing that just because Jesus said I wish you were hot or cold that doesn't imply that cold is good. Cold in no way relates to this scripture.

Just trying to show that Peter uses the same concept of comparison as Jesus uses in the lukewarm message. Earlier posts suggest that cold is good and I think otherwise.

But what do you make of the way it is written in Rev. to suggest that Jesus would indeed drink the cold or the hot but not the lukewarm? Doesn't that suggest that cold might be pleasing enough to Christ to drink? And what does he drink? I think of Paul who poured out his life as a drink offering. Just thinking again... :hmm:

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:05 AM
The second part of that definition is interesting. Does it mean to actually fluctuate between being hot for God and cold for God but not staying in either place? :hmm:

Makes sense to me...I think:lol:

It goes back to Parson's comments about them having to be HOT at some point.

I relate it to the Methodist church (I use them as an example and not to offend anyone). The early Methodists were spirit filled almost along the lines of the Pentacostals of today. As the years when on they grew more reserved and less spirit filled (colder). I love to study the early churches because I think they were in their purest forms at that point.

ShirleyFord
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:10 AM
John describes a group of people who were among the believers but not of them. Wouldn't these folks be considered luke warm?

1 Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Paul warns the elders of the local Church at Ephesus of those there and who would come in who would be part of that local assembly but not true believers:

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

And then Jesus speaks of the same type of folks in the Church who preach and teach in His name and do many mighty works in His name. But Jesus says, "I never knew you."

Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Shirley

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:16 AM
But what do you make of the way it is written in Rev. to suggest that Jesus would indeed drink the cold or the hot but not the lukewarm? Doesn't that suggest that cold might be pleasing enough to Christ to drink? And what does he drink? I think of Paul who poured out his life as a drink offering. Just thinking again... :hmm:



5593ψυχρός [psuchros /psoo·chros/] AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1558378#_ftn5) translates as “cold” four times. 1 cold, cool. 1a of cool water. 2 metaph. 2a cold i.e. sluggish, inert. 2b in mind: of one destitute of warm Christian faith and the desire for holiness.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:19 AM
5593ψυχρός [psuchros /psoo·chros/] AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1558378#_ftn5) translates as “cold” four times. 1 cold, cool. 1a of cool water. 2 metaph. 2a cold i.e. sluggish, inert. 2b in mind: of one destitute of warm Christian faith and the desire for holiness.


But as Ravi pointed out, it is also used in other places to be refreshing. And Jesus did NOT say he would spit out the cold. Only the lukewarm. Is this not for a reason? Why drink the cold but not the lukewarm? VerticalReality also asked this question.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:26 AM
But as Ravi pointed out, it is also used in other places to be refreshing. And Jesus did NOT say he would spit out the cold. Only the lukewarm. Is this not for a reason? Why drink the cold but not the lukewarm? VerticalReality also asked this question.

Here are the only 4 verses where this Greek word is used...

Matthew 10:42...unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a ...Revelation 3:15...I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold ......neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.So then because thou ...Revelation 3:16...So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out ...

If there are others then it is another Greek word.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:28 AM
But as Ravi pointed out, it is also used in other places to be refreshing. And Jesus did NOT say he would spit out the cold. Only the lukewarm. Is this not for a reason? Why drink the cold but not the lukewarm? VerticalReality also asked this question.

You didn't like the second part of cold in the Greek as much as you liked the second part of lukewarm:hmm:

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:31 AM
You didn't like the second part of cold in the Greek as much as you liked the second part of lukewarm:hmm:

I saw that. But it made me wonder... where did that definition come from? Was it an interpretation placed there? I can't find it in my Greek dictionary. Though it can mean chilly either literally or figuratively. And I can't get past the fact that Jesus drank it. Why? Why did he drink the cold but not the lukewarm? Why is being lukewarm worse than being cold or hot?

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:48 AM
I saw that. But it made me wonder... where did that definition come from? Was it an interpretation placed there? I can't find it in my Greek dictionary. Though it can mean chilly either literally or figuratively. And I can't get past the fact that Jesus drank it. Why? Why did he drink the cold but not the lukewarm? Why is being lukewarm worse than being cold or hot?

The same as Peter saying that it was better NOT to know the way of righteousness than to know it and turn from it. Maybe they could at least plead ignorance by not knowing.

Maybe Jesus is saying the lukewarm upsets Him more because maybe they were trying to fool Jesus by playing the middle. At least they would be on one side or the other.

This scripture came to my mind...it might not pertain but it jumped out at me.

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

The Parson
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:53 AM
Why don't we find some other simular uses in the scripture for the term and look at the context. I'll try doing that in the morning myself.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 01:56 AM
Here are the only 4 verses where this Greek word is used...

Matthew 10:42...unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a ...Revelation 3:15...I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold ......neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.So then because thou ...Revelation 3:16...So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out ...

If there are others then it is another Greek word.

Parson,

Here's some of the verses. The one in Matthew stands out to me because it is an accepted drink. Then in Rev. it is used again where Christ said he wished that we were cold or hot. So those are the only two places. And in both places, it is a good thing. Jesus said he wished we were cold. Isn't that interesting?

johnb1
Mar 3rd 2008, 02:25 AM
Ah.. Yup all seems related on all the passage you gave but is it the exact right using the context of it? :confused

Therefore what is the The Real Church of God?

Just Asking No Personal Attacking My Brother My Deepest Apology just for the sake of Many Souls :(


Cheer-UP Love above all and let's test the Spirits

1 John 4:1-3


1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Matthew 24:24-25


24"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

25"Behold, I have told you in advance.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 02:49 AM
I saw that. But it made me wonder... where did that definition come from? Was it an interpretation placed there? I can't find it in my Greek dictionary. Though it can mean chilly either literally or figuratively. And I can't get past the fact that Jesus drank it. Why? Why did he drink the cold but not the lukewarm? Why is being lukewarm worse than being cold or hot?

I pulled it straight from Enhanced Strong's Lexicon.

Maybe He drank it to "sample" it or in other words to "judge" its quality.

ravi4u2
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:03 AM
I'm not saying this is the same, just the same principle. I'm just showing that just because Jesus said I wish you were hot or cold that doesn't imply that cold is good. Cold in no way relates to this scripture.

Just trying to show that Peter uses the same concept of comparison as Jesus uses in the lukewarm message. Earlier posts suggest that cold is good and I think otherwise.Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But 2 Peter 2 seems to be out of context here. Why? Because Jesus says that if the Laodecians were either hot or cold, he would have still had them. He only throws out the lukewarm. So, being cold was as acceptable to him as being hot. If we accept the definition set forth by you, then, it would seem that you can not be saved, but Jesus will have you all the same as the saved (hot). It is only those that have known the truth and turn back (lukewarm), that he will vomit out. Now, such a view if accepted, presents quite a bit of doctrinal difficulties doesn't it?

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:12 AM
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But 2 Peter 2 seems to be out of context here. Why? Because Jesus says that if the Laodecians were either hot or cold, he would have still had them. He only throws out the lukewarm. So, being cold was as acceptable to him as being hot. If we accept the definition set forth by you, then, it would seem that you can not be saved, but Jesus will have you all the same as the saved (hot). It is only those that have known the truth and turn back (lukewarm), that he will vomit out. Now, such a view if accepted, presents quite a bit of doctrinal difficulties doesn't it?

Once again I am not saying anything in the text relates to the meaning. I was just showing that a "negative" was used as an acceptable option by Peter. The same COULD possibly be said about the lukewarm passage. Of the 3 cold and hot was better than lukewarm. What if the lukewarm was taken out of the scenario? Would Jesus say that I wish you were hot?

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:18 AM
Once again I am not saying anything in the text relates to the meaning. I was just showing that a "negative" was used as an acceptable option by Peter. The same COULD possibly be said about the lukewarm passage. Of the 3 cold and hot was better than lukewarm. What if the lukewarm was taken out of the scenario? Would Jesus say that I wish you were hot?

Why do you think he wished for either hot or cold? Why not just wish that they were hot? And why not spit out the cold?

I don't think he would say "I wish you were hot" because cold seemed pleasing to him. The only other passage the word is used it is a pleasing drink (the Matthew passage).

Oh, well, it does make for some interesting things to think about. I must admit, the thread has me to thinking now. :hmm:

Also, I am still thinking about metaphorically. The definition in my strongs concordance says "chilly" for either literal or metaphorically. And the idea that lukewarm might be up and down is also interesting.

Lot's to digest here.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:31 AM
Why do you think he wished for either hot or cold? Why not just wish that they were hot? And why not spit out the cold?

I don't think he would say "I wish you were hot" because cold seemed pleasing to him. The only other passage the word is used it is a pleasing drink (the Matthew passage).

Oh, well, it does make for some interesting things to think about. I must admit, the thread has me to thinking now. :hmm:

Also, I am still thinking about metaphorically. The definition in my strongs concordance says "chilly" for either literal or metaphorically. And the idea that lukewarm might be up and down is also interesting.

Lot's to digest here.

It sure is alot a digest!

Here is something from "Revelation:Four Views"...

The statement, I could wish you were cold or hot (v. 15), raises the startling prospect that Jesus, though wishing for all believers to be hot, would actually find coldness less offensive than lukewarmness. Perhaps we should not find this too surprising. Those who zealously oppose Christ (cold), and those who zealously serve Him (hot), have one thing in common: they both take Him seriously. The one who neither opposes nor serves offers Christ the ultimate insult—affirming His existence, but not taking Him seriously.

threebigrocks
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:33 AM
God wishes for all to be saved. It's easy to judge righteously when one is all for or against Him. Simple clear cut case of being either hot or cold.

But to see one who knows and doesn't walk the faith - I'd imagine that may be harder - but just as just - a decision to make.

This verse came to mind:

Matthew 12


10After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, "Hear and understand.

11"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." 12Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?"


God will spew out those who defile the church, what comes out of a man, because they claim to have Christ in them but do not follow Him. Could this also be a reference to spiritually spewing out, spitting out, cleansing what is not holy? Either way, it's judgement on the Laodacians, and it is not a "well done good and faithful servant."

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:34 AM
From the KJV Commentary...

15. The fault with this church is that it is neither cold nor hot; there is neither zeal for God nor absolute repudiation of the Lord. Lukewarmness (lukewarm water is an emetic) is hot and cold together: in Laodicea there are great humanitarian and cultural projects without the saving grace of the gospel. Here is their attitude toward Christ; they are totally indifferent. It is worse to be lukewarm (evangelical but not evangelistic, as many say) than to be one who abandons all profession. An active, positive opposition (notice Paul on the Damascus road) could be faced with better results.

TrustingFollower
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:34 AM
But what do you make of the way it is written in Rev. to suggest that Jesus would indeed drink the cold or the hot but not the lukewarm? Doesn't that suggest that cold might be pleasing enough to Christ to drink? And what does he drink? I think of Paul who poured out his life as a drink offering. Just thinking again... :hmm:
I don't see the passages in Revelations even suggesting Jesus would drink the cold at all. I think Christ knows exactly what is going to happen to the cold and the hot. This is telling us again what will happen to the luke warm. Jesus taught this in Matthew 7:21-23



21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

This is the same thing that we a taught in Revelations using the church in Laodicea as the example.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:37 AM
I don't see the passages in Revelations even suggesting Jesus would drink the cold at all. I think Christ knows exactly what is going to happen to the cold and the hot. This is telling us again what will happen to the luke warm. Jesus taught this in Matthew 7:21-23

This is the same thing that we a taught in Revelations using the church in Laodicea as the example.


Oh, I definitely agree with that exegesis. Jesus is knocking at there door! Shoot, he is not even inside.

But are we going right by the passage that he wishes one was either hot or cold and the only other mention of the Greek word in all of scripture is in a positive light? Here too the suggestion is made that he would not spit out the cold, only the lukewarm as he desires either hot or cold?

Prior to this thread, I think I always held to the view cold was negative. But I think VR and Ravi are making decent points. At least points worth considering.

2 Peter 2:20
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:38 AM
Matthew Henry's commentary...

1. The heavy charge drawn up against this church, ministers and people, by one who knew them better than they knew themselves: Thou art neither cold nor hot, but worse than either; I would thou wert cold or hot, v. 15. Lukewarmness or indifference in religion is the worst temper in the world. If religion is a real thing, it is the most excellent thing, and therefore we should be in good earnest in it; if it is not a real thing, it is the vilest imposture, and we should be earnest against it. If religion is worth any thing, it is worth every thing; an indifference here is inexcusable: Why halt you between two opinions? If God be God, follow him; if Baal (be God), follow him. Here is no room for neutrality. An open enemy shall have a fairer quarter than a perfidious neuter; and there is more hope of a heathen than of such. Christ expects that men should declare themselves in earnest either for him or against him.

The Parson
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:41 AM
Parson,

Here's some of the verses. The one in Matthew stands out to me because it is an accepted drink. Then in Rev. it is used again where Christ said he wished that we were cold or hot. So those are the only two places. And in both places, it is a good thing. Jesus said he wished we were cold. Isn't that interesting?OK ya'll. I've slipped into my study here at the house and completed my search the same as you have. Thank you Mark. The word is the same but as with many words from the Greek translated into the English language, it has different connotations. The cold drink of water is a preferable thing but the cold Christian??? There you have another circumstance.

Traditionally, the image of the Laodiceans being “neither cold nor hot” was thought to be metaphor about their lack of spiritual fire and lack of surrender to the Savior. The major problem with this is it seems like the Lord wanted them to be one or the other of the two extreems making some believe that both are a good thingy. Didn't say I totally agreed with it.

I reckon to understand this concept, I would say that Jesus would rather see someone totally against the cause (cold) rather than just a half hearted (lukewarm). It's sorta doubtful that the Savior prefered someone to be cold but it does show that the Lord prefers to deal with that sort of problem over someone who is just there for the ride to heaven (lukewarm). Does that make sense to you?

But what I think what you all are trying to say, and I'm still chewing this one over, is that the Lord is saying Cold water is refreshing and hot water heals. Lukewarm doesn't do either. Have I got your gist?

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:48 AM
OK ya'll. I've slipped into my study here at the house and completed my search the same as you have. Thank you Mark. The word is the same but as with many words from the Greek translated into the English language, it has different connotations. The cold drink of water is a preferable thing but the cold Christian??? There you have another circumstance.

I hear you Pastor. I guess what has got me to thinking now is I can't find in the passage where Christ indicated coldness was bad. I mean, where from a simple reading do we get that it is bad? I think we get it from our preconception of what it means to be hot or cold as a person. I know that's what I have thought for years. But now I am rethinking it.


I reckon to understand this concept, I would say that Jesus would rather see someone totally against the cause (cold) rather than just a half hearted (lukewarm). It's sorta doubtful that the Savior prefered someone to be cold but it does show that the Lord prefers to deal with that sort of problem over someone who is just there for the ride to heaven (lukewarm). Does that make sense to you?

But what I think what you all are trying to say, and I'm still chewing this one over, is that the Lord is saying Cold water is refreshing and hot water heals. Lukewarm doesn't do either. Have I got your gist?

From this passage we can all agree that lukewarmness is the worst of the three. But it seems to me to be the only one that he spits out. I know he says that it will be easier for Sodom in the day of judgment. Do you think they are considered cold?

What I am getting at... shouldn't we let scripture interpret scripture? At this point, Matthew referring to a cold drink as refreshing makes me think that "cold" in this passage might be refreshing while "hot" means fervent as Ravi suggested.

Anywho, we all know what lukewarm means and that is awful bad.

I am glad you started this thread. It has really got me to thinking and asking. I think I changed my mind at Ravi and VR's post. Maybe someone can change it back. ;)

joztok
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:24 AM
Lukewarm?
It kinda goes with working out salvation with fear and trembling.
Taking a step of faith because you think this is what God is asking you to do. That's not being lukewarm. Because when God speaks He might be asking you to do something that is confronting or challenging that have good or bad results, but for the latter being all for good.

Lukewarm, to me is not stepping out in faith (in a way that I just described above).

The Parson
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:32 PM
Lukewarm?
It kinda goes with working out salvation with fear and trembling.
Taking a step of faith because you think this is what God is asking you to do. That's not being lukewarm. Because when God speaks He might be asking you to do something that is confronting or challenging that have good or bad results, but for the latter being all for good.

Lukewarm, to me is not stepping out in faith (in a way that I just described above).That would go along with Romans 8:28 now wouldn't it?

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Lukewarm is more a refusal to do what we need to do or act the way we should act because we are just comfortable the way we are. The status quo so to speak.

threebigrocks
Mar 3rd 2008, 04:17 PM
Well, if we are going to say cold is good and hot is bad - that could be reasoned out to say that hot is bad because burning in the lake of fire is bad. That reasoning is a twisting of scripture.

I don't believe that is what the passage is saying at all, rather the opposite. If love runs cold - then it love isn't there. If God is love, and we run cold, then we are not abiding in His love.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 04:52 PM
Well, if we are going to say cold is good and hot is bad - that could be reasoned out to say that hot is bad because burning in the lake of fire is bad. That reasoning is a twisting of scripture.

I don't believe that is what the passage is saying at all, rather the opposite. If love runs cold - then it love isn't there. If God is love, and we run cold, then we are not abiding in His love.

Why do you think cold is bad in this passage? What is it about the passage that suggest cold is bad?

That's the question two folks asked earlier that got me to thinking and pondering. I haven't researched any Greek idioms though. Perhaps their idioms are similar to ours. It especially caught my eye that the only other place in scripture it is used, it refers to a cool drink in a positive light. Even in this passage, Jesus doesn't spew it out and wishes they were cold. Why would he wish someone were cold if it wasn't a good thing?

I must say, this thread has got me to thinking things I haven't thought about before. I am willing to go back to thinking cold is bad. But I am hoping we can get some scripture to suggest why that is so.

threebigrocks
Mar 3rd 2008, 04:59 PM
Why do you think cold is bad in this passage? What is it about the passage that suggest cold is bad?

That's the question two folks asked earlier that got me to thinking and pondering. I haven't researched any Greek idioms though. Perhaps their idioms are similar to ours. It especially caught my eye that the only other place in scripture it is used, it refers to a cool drink in a positive light. Even in this passage, Jesus doesn't spew it out and wishes they were cold. Why would he wish someone were cold if it wasn't a good thing?

I must say, this thread has got me to thinking things I haven't thought about before. I am willing to go back to thinking cold is bad. But I am hoping we can get some scripture to suggest why that is so.

As I stated above and this:

Matthew 24



11"Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
12"Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. 13"But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 08:21 PM
As I stated above and this:

Matthew 24

While it's the same English word, it's a different Greek word. Still worth considering. I missed it earlier somehow. Thanks for posting that one!

The one in Matthew 24 has to do with becoming cold by evaporation or to do with breathing or by a breeze. But the one in Revelations and Matthew 10 have to do with drinking something that is cold.

To sum up, Matthew used psucho in Matthew 24. But he used psuchros in Matthew 10. John used psuchros in Rev. 3.

Though you may be right, and I am no Greek scholar. I wonder what the difference is in the two words and if they are interchangible if not. If they can be interchanged, why would Matthew use different words when describing cold drink and cold love? I think it is interesting how the only way psucho is used in scripture is pertaining to drink. The one reference we have of it outside of revelation it is used in a positive. :hmm:

brakelite
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:04 PM
Hi Parson.
Well, you were right on one thing. Lots of different opinions. And guess what. Yep, here's another.
First, no argument concerning the hot. Fervent, dedicated love and service for Jesus.
The cold, however, I see a little differently. Cold is opposite to hot, but those people who are cold are at least in a position where they may recognise their need of Christ, and come to Him and be transformed by His power and become hot.
The lukewarm however, are in trouble. They do not recognise their need. They in fact believe they have everything and need nothing, when the truth is they need everything and have nothing. The clue to this is verse 20, where Jesus says He is knocking at the door to be invited in. The Laodicean does not have Jesus in the life. There is no relationship.
Jesus does not rebuke them re their doctrines or beliefs, but I think if they do not repent Jesus will be saying to them "Depart from Me ye workers of iniquity,I never knew you"

The Parson
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:15 PM
Hi Parson.
Well, you were right on one thing. Lots of different opinions. And guess what. Yep, here's another.
First, no argument concerning the hot. Fervent, dedicated love and service for Jesus.
The cold, however, I see a little differently. Cold is opposite to hot, but those people who are cold are at least in a position where they may recognise their need of Christ, and come to Him and be transformed by His power and become hot.
The lukewarm however, are in trouble. They do not recognise their need. They in fact believe they have everything and need nothing, when the truth is they need everything and have nothing. The clue to this is verse 20, where Jesus says He is knocking at the door to be invited in. The Laodicean does not have Jesus in the life. There is no relationship.
Jesus does not rebuke them re their doctrines or beliefs, but I think if they do not repent Jesus will be saying to them "Depart from Me ye workers of iniquity,I never knew you"Thanks brakelite. I like the way you explained that except that Jesus is talking to a church. Meaning part of the body. So it probably isn't the depart from me crowd. Then again, I'm an eternal security believer, my take is somewhat different from others... But as for your premise, well said...

brakelite
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:29 PM
A point to note is that there was hope for the church. Jesus is offering them a solution. But if they neglect the warning given, their fate will be the same as those foolish virgins who were shut out of the feast, and the same fate as those who have not Christ in the life.
Interesting to note that the Laodicean church had a great leader in Epaphras, who was recommended and commended by Paul himself. (Coll 4:12,13). What went wrong? I guess they may have gotten lazy and thought they could survive and grow without prayer, and they began to trust in themselves instead of Christ. And eventually, He was left out of the picture altogether.