Revelation 3:16 question

Status
Not open for further replies.

bobtheman

Puritan Board Freshman
Has anyone ever heard this before?



Revelation 3:16 ESV
So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.


I have heard this scripture covered with the following explanation: Luke warm water was used to induce vomiting. So this verse is saying that Jesus becomes ill, to the point of vomiting, with regards to apathetic Christians.
 
Oh Bob, :D

Its our slang around here for those that hold to a dispensational viewpoint.
 
Has anyone ever heard this before?



Revelation 3:16 ESV
So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.


I have heard this scripture covered with the following explanation: Luke warm water was used to induce vomiting. So this verse is saying that Jesus becomes ill, to the point of vomiting, with regards to apathetic Christians.

Don't read more into the text then what is shown. Simply Christ is pronouncing His judgment upon the Laodiceans.
 
As Andrew said, Christ is pronouncing judgment upon his church in Laodicea. The spewing out has nothing to do with vomiting. I've also heard the verse misconstrued by saying something along the lines of: "Christ either wants you 'on fire for the Lord' or he would rather you're a cold unbeliever, but doesn't want halfhearted Christians." The hot and cold refers to usefulness; hot water and cold water have a multitude of uses; however, lukewarm warm is of little utility, and likewise the Laodiceans are, in a sense, of little use to the Lord.
 
"So then, because thou art lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth: which is in sum this, seeing then thou art in a luke-warm temper, which usually means stomachs can more hardly keep than what is cold, or what is hot, but must spew out the same as a thing loathsome unto them; so will I in some singular and extraordinary manner evidence my loathing of this thy luke-warm hypocritical temper." James Durham, Commentary on Revelation 3:16.
 
Forgot the dispie part, "And this expression, to spew out, etc. seemeth to import these three, 1. That it shall be such a judgment as will be an evidence of the Lord’s loathing of them, and giving up with them without respect to their form. 2. It implieth a making of them loathsome before others, as vomit useth to be: and so it is the Lord’s taking by the vail of their hypocrisy, and making them to fall from that respect and estimation amongst others, which possibly they hunted after in this their external profession...."
 
Forgot the dispie part, "And this expression, to spew out, etc. seemeth to import these three, 1. That it shall be such a judgment as will be an evidence of the Lord’s loathing of them, and giving up with them without respect to their form. 2. It implieth a making of them loathsome before others, as vomit useth to be: and so it is the Lord’s taking by the vail of their hypocrisy, and making them to fall from that respect and estimation amongst others, which possibly they hunted after in this their external profession...."

Yes, the dispie angle is a sideshow that takes front stage. As a pastor, reading those 7 letters is utterly chilling. I'm not an historicist regarding Revelation, and I think the warnings apply to current churches, as well.
 
Forgot the dispie part, "And this expression, to spew out, etc. seemeth to import these three, 1. That it shall be such a judgment as will be an evidence of the Lord’s loathing of them, and giving up with them without respect to their form. 2. It implieth a making of them loathsome before others, as vomit useth to be: and so it is the Lord’s taking by the vail of their hypocrisy, and making them to fall from that respect and estimation amongst others, which possibly they hunted after in this their external profession...."

Yes, the dispie angle is a sideshow that takes front stage. As a pastor, reading those 7 letters is utterly chilling. I'm not an historicist regarding Revelation, and I think the warnings apply to current churches, as well.

TO make sure I understand your comment correctly: Your stating that this type of rhetoric, regarding the interpretation of vomiting with this verse, is a type of entertainment that is putting more into the scripture than what is there .. and hides the true meaning of the verse?

Is that accurate of your thoughts?

I am not sure how this interpretation of this scripture ties into dispensationalism, but I plan to dig into my systematic theology book on this subject matter "dispensationalism" and do some reading to attempt to understand why.
 
If one disagrees on some exegetical basis, fine. Durham was not a dispensationalist.

If i read your quoted commentary from Durham correctly, he is correlating Rev 3:16 to vomiting. Just to confirm, you agree with that interpretation. That those who are lukewarm make Jesus sick to the point of vomiting.

Is that correct?
 
Vomit, spit, the point is He finds lukewarmness revolting. I already explained the reason I posted; this is not some crazy dispie take on the verse.
 
Vomit, spit, the point is He finds lukewarmness revolting. I already explained the reason I posted; this is not some crazy dispie take on the verse.

I would agree that this interpretation has little to do with dispensationalism. The exegetical question that must be answered is whether Laodicea is merely being compared to lukewarm water in that both induce vomiting, or is Laodicea being rebuked because they are lukewarm. I think a good case could be made for either.
 
I have never personally heard the "lukewarm water induces vomiting" angle from any pastor other than Adrian Rogers. Perhaps others have used it. Dr. Rogers was most certainly dispensational, and the primary cause that started my rethinking the SBC theology I was raised in from listening to his sermons (though not particularly Revelation Chapter 3). I have heard the "Jesus will spit out the apathetic" angle from ministers of all persuasions. Sorry if my brief comment derailed the thread. No brevity goes unpunished.
 
Forgot the dispie part, "And this expression, to spew out, etc. seemeth to import these three, 1. That it shall be such a judgment as will be an evidence of the Lord’s loathing of them, and giving up with them without respect to their form. 2. It implieth a making of them loathsome before others, as vomit useth to be: and so it is the Lord’s taking by the vail of their hypocrisy, and making them to fall from that respect and estimation amongst others, which possibly they hunted after in this their external profession...."

Yes, the dispie angle is a sideshow that takes front stage. As a pastor, reading those 7 letters is utterly chilling. I'm not an historicist regarding Revelation, and I think the warnings apply to current churches, as well.

TO make sure I understand your comment correctly: Your stating that this type of rhetoric, regarding the interpretation of vomiting with this verse, is a type of entertainment that is putting more into the scripture than what is there .. and hides the true meaning of the verse?

Is that accurate of your thoughts?

I am not sure how this interpretation of this scripture ties into dispensationalism, but I plan to dig into my systematic theology book on this subject matter "dispensationalism" and do some reading to attempt to understand why.


From the ensuing posts, I infer that you're referencing Chris' original comments. But as you quoted me (as I quoted him), and used the phrase type of entertainment and I used the term sideshow I think, I'll offer a brief response. If you weren't aiming at me, then feel free to keep shooting in the opposite direction (yes, that's an attempt at humor).

I was alluding to dispensationalism as a system as a sideshow, and was not actually making a comment on the etymology of any of the terminology inspired by The Spirit in the verse. However, dispensationalists, in the main, are fellow Christians. And as LC 135 reminds me that the 6th Word requires mild and courteous speeches and LC 113 reminds me that the 3rd Word forbids vain janglings, and as LC 131 reminds me that the 5th Word requires The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other, then my terminology might have been sinful and careless. I certainly meant no offense, and although I do find dispensationalism illogical and offensive, I've no right to mock those who hold those views, irrespective of the aberrance of those views. Matthew 12:36-37 and James 3 are, sadly, seemingly always by my side.
 
Last edited:
Vomit, spit, the point is He finds lukewarmness revolting. I already explained the reason I posted; this is not some crazy dispie take on the verse.

I would agree that this interpretation has little to do with dispensationalism. The exegetical question that must be answered is whether Laodicea is merely being compared to lukewarm water in that both induce vomiting, or is Laodicea being rebuked because they are lukewarm. I think a good case could be made for either.

Bill,

I do not think you can see a comparison in this text. 1) the lukewarm water is not being compared to anything else "Therefore because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, it will come to pass, that I shall spew thee out of my mouth." 2) This is judgment. Since they are proud and arrogant in their ways saying "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing", Christ is judging them. This is not a metaphor for comparison. This is language used in Deut. 25 as a sign of judgment. It is also used as language for shame Isaiah 50:6.
 
We do not like to find a lukewarm drink when we ask for a cold drink, or a lukewarm drink when we ask for a hot drink. The instinctive response when we take a sip might be to spit it out.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Personally, given the rise of the "emergent church" and "postmodern christianity", I find a little more appeal in the "I would rather you were unbelieving than this" interpretation than the immediate contexts confirms.
 
Robert Thomas (serious exegetical dispensationist)and Greg Beale (Reformed) both argue that Laodicea only had access to Lukewarm water, though Beale goes on to argue that the real point of the passage is witness for/to Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top