ECT Food Sacrificed to Idols

nikolai_42

Well-known member
In Revelation 2, two churches are taken to task by the Lord because of influences that lead people to eat food sacrificed to idols.

To Pergamos :

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Rev 2:14-16

To Thyatira :

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

Rev 2:20-24

I have underlined some of the key elements (characters named, what they did to the people etc...) and note that both of these involve not only idolatry but stated fornication.

The questions are these :

1. What is meant in these instances by eating things sacrificed to idols? (Please give a reasoned answer)
2. How does that square with Paul's word to the Corinthians (I Cor 8) about eating food sacrificed to idols?
3. How about with the Jerusalem Council's conclusions for the Gentiles in Acts 15:19-20?
4. How do the spiritual conditions of these two churches compare?
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
In I Cor. 8 Paul said that there were Christians who had the knowledge to know that the meat sacrificed to idols was alright to eat. Because idols were nothing. Much of the meat sold on the markets had been sacrificed to idols and people knew it. But because some Christians would be upset by eating meat offered to idols Paul discouraged eating such meat that would hurt them.

"Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall" (I Cor. 8:13).
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
In I Cor. 8 Paul said that there were Christians who had the knowledge to know that the meat sacrificed to idols was alright to eat. Because idols were nothing. Much of the meat sold on the markets had been sacrificed to idols and people knew it. But because some Christians would be upset by eating meat offered to idols Paul discouraged eating such meat that would hurt them.

"Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall" (I Cor. 8:13).

While I recognize this is the thing focused on (and I know three of my questions were directly related to it), this is only part of the story. The letters to the two churches that had this charge were very direct and clear that they were being seduced/influenced to eat things sacrificed to idols. Now either Paul is simply wrong in what he said or there is more to what is going on in Revelation. So while I also have wondered at the surface-level contradiction, it seems to be more involved and more insidious than what Paul was talking about. Having said that, one still has to navigate the differences if one is going to understand what was going on in Pergamos and Thyatira.

So I guess the first question I would ask you is why the Lord was chastising these churches for something the apostle Paul (seemingly) said wasn't a big deal?

EDIT : And if what the Lord was rebuking isn't the same thing that Paul was talking about, then why is the (English) wording essentially the same?
 
Last edited:

Bradley D

Well-known member
"There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.'

"Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols."

I believe the Lord is addressing the church about people within the church who are not Christians, but spreaders of evil/idolatry.

Whereas Paul, who also spoke of the sinners within the church, was addressing to eating the meat sacrificed to idols as not being of any harm to eat as long as one knew that the idols were false and meaningless to a true Christian. However, Paul addressed that to care for the new Christians who were upset by the eating of such meat. That it was better for Paul and the senior Christians not to eat it for concern for the newer Chrisitans.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
"There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.'

"Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols."

I believe the Lord is addressing the church about people within the church who are not Christians, but spreaders of evil/idolatry.

Whereas Paul, who also spoke of the sinners within the church, was addressing to eating the meat sacrificed to idols as not being of any harm to eat as long as one knew that the idols were false and meaningless to a true Christian. However, Paul addressed that to care for the new Christians who were upset by the eating of such meat. That it was better for Paul and the senior Christians not to eat it for concern for the newer Chrisitans.

Okay, but if you read it, He is addressing those that tolerate these teachings and speaking of the teaching itself. The teaching causes these things to be manifest. And while there are very likely some who aren’t saved and some who are, Paul’s letter and the letters here in Revelation would have been transmitted the same way (I am assuming) - as a letter to the whole church. So would not Paul’s letter have potentially had the effect of tolerating what Jesus clearly condemns? If what you say is the case, then wouldn’t Paul be guilty of defending idolatry ( in the context of the letters in Revelation)?

I don’t believe he was, but just breaking it down the way you do (it seems to me) leads to that problem.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
No I don't believe that Paul would ever defend idoltary. He was defending the churches newcomers. We should have more concern for them. Than doing something we know does not hurt us, but may hurt them. As I pointed out much of the meat sold in the markets came from sacrificed animals. Buying and eating the meat was not a sin. However to the new Christian who knew that the meat had been sacrificed to idols may have a guilty conscience if they buy and eat it. Therefore Paul cares more about them than doing something he knows not is wrong.

Paul does not support idols. Paul often himself pointed out in his letters people who were acting wrongly within the church. Paul that if they did not repent they needed to leave the church. Christ in Rev. was also pointing the evil idol worshippers within the church. It was up to the believers to remove them.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
No I don't believe that Paul would ever defend idoltary. He was defending the churches newcomers. We should have more concern for them. Than doing something we know does not hurt us, but may hurt them. As I pointed out much of the meat sold in the markets came from sacrificed animals. Buying and eating the meat was not a sin. However to the new Christian who knew that the meat had been sacrificed to idols may have a guilty conscience if they buy and eat it. Therefore Paul cares more about them than doing something he knows not is wrong.

Paul does not support idols. Paul often himself pointed out in his letters people who were acting wrongly within the church. Paul that if they did not repent they needed to leave the church. Christ in Rev. was also pointing the evil idol worshippers within the church. It was up to the believers to remove them.

I’m not saying Paul would defend idolatry. But Rev 2 deals literally with people teaching (and seducing) others to eat food sacrificed to idols. That’s the English wording of the KJV. The literal wording of I Cor 8:1 in the same bible is “Now as touching things offered unto idols....” and the rest of the passage goes on to say eating things sacrificed to idols. The chastisement for these two churches had to do with what was being taught more than those who were following the teaching (but they were rebuked as well). Again, I am not trying to advance the view that Paul was promoting idolatry or even that he was the one referenced as Balaam to Pergamos. The fact that this happened in Thyatira but it seems to be a woman influencing others tells me that the idea wasn’t new. As Peter says, Paul wrote things hard to be understood that some misused to their own destruction. My intent is to get past that thought because it really reads these passages superficially. That said, they need to be dealt with and so my question is how to understand the teachings being propagated in Pergamos and Thyatira - what they were, how they were manifested and how it compared with other teachings (Paul here and the Jerusalem council in Acts).

Since I am on a mobile device I will leave it at that until I can respond on a bigger keyboard (!)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
In Revelation 2, two churches are taken to task by the Lord because of influences that lead people to eat food sacrificed to idols.

To Pergamos :

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Rev 2:14-16

To Thyatira :

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

Rev 2:20-24

I have underlined some of the key elements (characters named, what they did to the people etc...) and note that both of these involve not only idolatry but stated fornication.

The questions are these :

1. What is meant in these instances by eating things sacrificed to idols? (Please give a reasoned answer)
2. How does that square with Paul's word to the Corinthians (I Cor 8) about eating food sacrificed to idols?
3. How about with the Jerusalem Council's conclusions for the Gentiles in Acts 15:19-20?
4. How do the spiritual conditions of these two churches compare?

The key to this question of yours is found in the doctrines of Balaam and Jezebel. Study the story of Balaam's interaction with the king of Moab and what he finally told the king to do to remove the protection of God from the Israelites. Then study what Jezebel taught the people of the nation of Israel. That is your clue to the entire list of questions. To me, the answer lies in that both Balaam and Jezebel were involved into leading the people into transgressing God's law both in regard to sexual sins and diet. But it needs to be understood that the key is the seduction of the Israelites into the worship of pagan gods. It was by joining in that worship with the Moabites and with Jezebel that the Israelites sinned sexually and in diet, for both of those sins were integral to the worship of Baal, the god of Moab an the god of Jezebel.

Paul was not dealing with the sin of idolatry in the churches which is what both Balaam and Jezebel influenced the Israelites to join in on. The problem he faced was that some of the new converts still regarded the old idols they used to worship as powerful and meaningful, even though they no longer worshiped them. Thus those converts were susceptible to being influenced to go back to their old ways of life by seeing fellow members eating food offered to idols even though those eating that food had no intention of going back to idolatry. To those members the idols had lost all influence in their lives, which was not the case with those with the weak consciences.

Hope this helps.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
I smell a rabbit, but I’m willing to explore...cautiously.

How does MADness eliminate the problem?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Just making sure you realize I'm having a little fun with the jab. While I do not subscribe to the position of Mid-Acts dispensationalism (or dispensationalism, generally), I am not actively hostile to those that hold it. This was intended mainly as a play on words with the understanding I don't agree with the position. Nothing more.

Assuming that to be understood, I'll proceed.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
The book of Revelation is completely and totally associated with Israel and has nothing to do with the body of Christ.

The only way I can fathom that position is if it's simply because Paul didn't write it that it is understood to be written to Israel. There are other hints, but the main reason I can't accept that premise is the very first verse of the book :

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Revelation 1:1

I see no compelling reason to limit "servants" to some category of "Jewish believers" (at least partly in light of there being no Jew or Gentile in Christ).
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
The key to this question of yours is found in the doctrines of Balaam and Jezebel. Study the story of Balaam's interaction with the king of Moab and what he finally told the king to do to remove the protection of God from the Israelites. Then study what Jezebel taught the people of the nation of Israel. That is your clue to the entire list of questions. To me, the answer lies in that both Balaam and Jezebel were involved into leading the people into transgressing God's law both in regard to sexual sins and diet. But it needs to be understood that the key is the seduction of the Israelites into the worship of pagan gods. It was by joining in that worship with the Moabites and with Jezebel that the Israelites sinned sexually and in diet, for both of those sins were integral to the worship of Baal, the god of Moab an the god of Jezebel.

Paul was not dealing with the sin of idolatry in the churches which is what both Balaam and Jezebel influenced the Israelites to join in on. The problem he faced was that some of the new converts still regarded the old idols they used to worship as powerful and meaningful, even though they no longer worshiped them. Thus those converts were susceptible to being influenced to go back to their old ways of life by seeing fellow members eating food offered to idols even though those eating that food had no intention of going back to idolatry. To those members the idols had lost all influence in their lives, which was not the case with those with the weak consciences.

Hope this helps.

I think I agree with most of what you said. In light of what you say, how do you assess the relative situations in Pergamos and Thyatira?
 

Right Divider

Body part
The only way I can fathom that position is if it's simply because Paul didn't write it that it is understood to be written to Israel. There are other hints, but the main reason I can't accept that premise is the very first verse of the book :

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Revelation 1:1

I see no compelling reason to limit "servants" to some category of "Jewish believers" (at least partly in light of there being no Jew or Gentile in Christ).
This is very much "cherry-picking"... to take one verse and ignore the entire rest of the book.

First, John was one of the 12 apostles that will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. That's a MAJOR clue right there.

Isa 41:8-9 KJV But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. (9) Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.

Those are the servants that are being referred to there.

Secondly, through the 2nd and 3rd chapters you find CONSTANT references to all things Israelite.

Things like "he that hath the key of David", etc. etc. etc.

TWICE this phrase is used "which say they are Jews, and are not"... That has nothing to do with the body of Christ and everything to do with Israel.

There are many, many more of those.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
I think I agree with most of what you said. In light of what you say, how do you assess the relative situations in Pergamos and Thyatira?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question. Assess Pergamos and Thyatira in relation to what? Each other? The churches in both cities? The believers in both cities? The cities?
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
This is very much "cherry-picking"... to take one verse and ignore the entire rest of the book.

I hope the irony of that statement isn't lost on you. You will reject certain books because they aren't written (explicitly?) to Gentiles (or by Paul?), and this book opens - telling you precisely who it is to. I think it is very much on point. If the book was written to the Lost Tribes (like James) or something like that, maybe I could see the argument. But the book specifically indicates who it is for.

First, John was one of the 12 apostles that will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. That's a MAJOR clue right there.

Isa 41:8-9 KJV But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. (9) Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.

A servant of God is not defined (in the NT) by race. He or she is defined by who(m) they serve :

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
...
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.[/I]
Romans 6:16,22

Those are the servants that are being referred to there.

There's no exclusivity in the term "servant" that limits it to Jew or Gentile (that I'm aware of). Certainly it is used in some instances to refer to Israelites, but what would one expect from an OT passage?

Secondly, through the 2nd and 3rd chapters you find CONSTANT references to all things Israelite.

Things like "he that hath the key of David", etc. etc. etc.

TWICE this phrase is used "which say they are Jews, and are not"... That has nothing to do with the body of Christ and everything to do with Israel.

There are many, many more of those.[/QUOTE]

And in the context of MAD, that has some coherence. But you are still left with trying to be firmly convinced that the letter wasn't written to all those in Christ. That is, Revelation 1:1 is the verse that directly identifies that - and there is no clear restriction on "servant".
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
I'm not sure I fully understand your question. Assess Pergamos and Thyatira in relation to what? Each other? The churches in both cities? The believers in both cities? The cities?

Jesus chastizes both churches for giving place to those who teach/seduce/cast a stumblingblock before others and teach them to eat things sacrificed to idols. But in one church He uses Balaam as the type and in the other He uses Jezebel. Why the difference? What was worse about Thyatira that He even held His tongue in detailing the depths of Satan so as not to defile innocent consciences?

EDIT : My question goes to the differences in characterization, not wanting to detail the depths of wickedness into which they had sunk.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Jesus chastizes both churches for giving place to those who teach/seduce/cast a stumblingblock before others and teach them to eat things sacrificed to idols. But in one church He uses Balaam as the type and in the other He uses Jezebel. Why the difference? What was worse about Thyatira that He even held His tongue in detailing the depths of Satan so as not to defile innocent consciences?

EDIT : My question goes to the differences in characterization, not wanting to detail the depths of wickedness into which they had sunk.

I think part of that goes to what Paul experienced in Thyatira. Acts 16 goes into some of what he experienced there and a description of the spiritual condition of the area itself. I don't think we can speak to the characterization without going into the details of the wickedness in each city. Jesus called Thyatira the seat of Satan. That's pretty wicked. I would call it immersed in evil as the businessmen there who owned a devil possessed woman tried to use her to make money off of Paul's and Cyrus' missionary efforts. They got mad enough when Paul stopped her to throw him in jail.

In relation to evil there are things that a person just can't unsee or unknow once they know them, even if they wish they didn't know what they now know. An example would be Adam and Eve. There are things I got into during my lifetime before I met Jesus that I don't like to go into for just that reason. With relation to knowledge of evil ignorance is bliss. It's a huge mistake to go looking for it to try to understand it.

As to the differences between Balaam and Jezebel, I think, and this is at least partly supposition on my part, that as evil as Balaam was in his greed, Jezebel was far worse. She used Ahab to corrupt the entire nation of Israel. In other words, between the two of them she was the one wearing the pants, so to speak. If you read those stories she was the one that talked Ahab into murdering Naboth for his vineyard. That was extremely serious as a family's land was to stay in that family forever. Her brand of pagan worship was extremely evil. The temple rites were all about sex and they had priestesses as well as priests. From my understanding all of them, priests and priestesses, were prostitutes. That religion also involved the worship of the dead. All of these things are things God said were an abomination to Him. In my mind Balaam sold out his integrity. Jezebel, the daughter of a pagan king, was just pure evil and most likely had a close connection to the devil himself. I say that partly because of Jesus' comments on Thyatira being the seat of Satan, and the rest on just how evil Jezebel really was.

I hope this helps. I have to admit to a fair amount of ignorance in this area as I have not studied this in depth nor spent any real amount of time on it like I have in many other areas of Bible study. Your questions were good for me as they have prompted me to study this area in much greater detail than I ever have before. You piqued my curiosity.

One more thing just occurred to me. Paul called the worship of Diana the worship of demons. She was, as a goddess, a spiritual descendant of Ashtoreth. Ashtoreth was one of Jezebel's gods. Therefore she was directly involved in demon worship. Now you won't find the name of Jezebel directly linked to Ashtoreth, but she was the daughter of the king of the Sidonians. One of the heathen practices of Solomon was the worship of Asthoreth, who the Bible says was the goddess of the Sidonians. 1Kings 11:5 and 1Kings 16:31
 

Right Divider

Body part
I hope the irony of that statement isn't lost on you. You will reject certain books because they aren't written (explicitly?) to Gentiles (or by Paul?), and this book opens - telling you precisely who it is to. I think it is very much on point. If the book was written to the Lost Tribes (like James) or something like that, maybe I could see the argument. But the book specifically indicates who it is for.
I don't reject any book of the book of the Bible. I understand them all in their proper context.

Blah, blah, blah....

If you cannot understand what I wrote, there is no use in me continuing.
 
Top