ECT Food Sacrificed to Idols

[nikolai_42]

The book of Revelation is primarily to and about Israel.

If you try to apply it directly to the church which is His body... the body of Christ... you will be very confused.

Many prominent Christian teachers try to "teach" the book of Revelation and make an incredible mess out of it.

But, if you rightly divide as Paul commands, it's all very clear.

And this is why I was concerned this may not be the thread for this subject - because in my eyes, you have contradicted yourself or misapplied what I concluded (as my understanding of MAD). I said :

You have said that the Bible does not describe or enjoin everyone universally, but the MAD context makes a division such that there appears to be little or no cross-application (i.e. to both Jew and Gentile) unless explicitly indicated.

To which you responded :

I have said NO SUCH THING.

Now it may be that I wasn't quoting you properly, but what you went on to say seemed to validate exactly what I said. So I'm left spending my time trying to navigate the waters of defining (Mid Acts) Dispensationalism. And your response here seems to prove my statement that some books are for the church while others aren't. And defining who Revelation is to (in MAD eyes) appears to limit "servants" of Jesus Christ to those of the tribes of Israel. So the question now has become who is the book to (and should we even worry about the warnings) rather than the understanding of idolatry in the context of a church (and specifically, these 7 churches as compared with the references in Acts 15 and I Cor 8). What, then, do you believe the Gentile church can take away from these letters (and, specifically, the references to idolatry and eating food sacrificed to idols)?

{I would love to discuss the MAD definition and it's scripturality, but I think it's going to detract from the OP, so I really don't want to get into it here. And I have enough trouble keeping up with the few threads I am involved in, so I don't want to spread myself thin (or start something and then abruptly disappear). }

 

[Right Divider]

And this is why I was concerned this may not be the thread for this subject - because in my eyes, you have contradicted yourself or misapplied what I concluded (as my understanding of MAD). I said :

To which you responded :

Now it may be that I wasn't quoting you properly, but what you went on to say seemed to validate exactly what I said. So I'm left spending my time trying to navigate the waters of defining (Mid Acts) Dispensationalism. And your response here seems to prove my statement that some books are for the church while others aren't. And defining who Revelation is to (in MAD eyes) appears to limit "servants" of Jesus Christ to those of the tribes of Israel. So the question now has become who is the book to (and should we even worry about the warnings) rather than the understanding of idolatry in the context of a church (and specifically, these 7 churches as compared with the references in Acts 15 and I Cor 8). What, then, do you believe the Gentile church can take away from these letters (and, specifically, the references to idolatry and eating food sacrificed to idols)?

{I would love to discuss the MAD definition and it's scripturality, but I think it's going to detract from the OP, so I really don't want to get into it here. And I have enough trouble keeping up with the few threads I am involved in, so I don't want to spread myself thin (or start something and then abruptly disappear). }

Dispensational understanding of the Bible simply lets the Bible speak for itself. When James says that he is writing "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad", it is very clear that he has a specific audience in mind. If you try to apply what James writes to the twelve tribes scattered aboard to someone other than them, you create great confusion. It that understandable so far?

God separated Israel from other people for His own purposes. That division is important and the Bible has tons of details regarding it. You cannot just ignore that.

When God set aside Israel (temporally), His message also changed per the apostle Paul. Much of modern "Christianity" spends vast amounts of effort trying to prove that this is not true.... but it IS true.

When Paul says that there is no Jew nor Greek in the body of Christ, he is most definitely not talking about what was going on before his ministry, nor what will go on when God restores Israel and their kingdom.

 

[nikolai_42]

Dispensational understanding of the Bible simply lets the Bible speak for itself. When James says that he is writing "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad", it is very clear that he has a specific audience in mind. If you try to apply what James writes to the twelve tribes scattered aboard to someone other than them, you create great confusion. It that understandable so far?

God separated Israel from other people for His own purposes. That division is important and the Bible has tons of details regarding it. You cannot just ignore that.

When God set aside Israel (temporally), His message also changed per the apostle Paul. Much of modern "Christianity" spends vast amounts of effort trying to prove that this is not true.... but it IS true.

When Paul says that there is no Jew nor Greek in the body of Christ, he is most definitely not talking about what was going on before his ministry, nor what will go on when God restores Israel and their kingdom.

I will make one comment on this. If I were to take James and determine that it was not written to me so I don't need to pay close attention to it (because Gentiles don't have the same role to play as Israel), then I would have ammunition to say that justification by works is for the Jews and justification by faith is for the Gentiles, would I not? After all, James makes reference to Abraham as "our father" in James 2:21 in the context of that very statement. What is keeping me from making that conclusion, then?

 

[Right Divider]

I will make one comment on this. If I were to take James and determine that it was not written to me so I don't need to pay close attention to it (because Gentiles don't have the same role to play as Israel), then I would have ammunition to say that justification by works is for the Jews and justification by faith is for the Gentiles, would I not? After all, James makes reference to Abraham as "our father" in James 2:21 in the context of that very statement. What is keeping me from making that conclusion, then?

No, you are still confusing things.

There are Jews and Gentiles involved in BOTH of God's plans.

In God's kingdom for Israel on the earth, Jews have the prominent place. You can see that from what the Lord Jesus Christ told them while He was on earth as the minister of the circumcision. Romans 15:8

When God set aside Israel (temporarily) that changed. That is why Paul declares that there is neither Jew NOR Greek in the body of Christ. Gal 3:28

During this dispensation of His grace freely given there is no distinction. There was before and there will be again.

 

[nikolai_42]

No, you are still confusing things.

There are Jews and Gentiles involved in BOTH of God's plans.

In God's kingdom for Israel on the earth, Jews have the prominent place. You can see that from what the Lord Jesus Christ told them while He was on earth as the minister of the circumcision. Romans 15:8

When God set aside Israel (temporarily) that changed. That is why Paul declares that there is neither Jew NOR Greek in the body of Christ. Gal 3:28

During this dispensation of His grace freely given there is no distinction. There was before and there will be again.

Then I still don't understand why the letters to the churches need worry about that supposed distinction.

 

[Right Divider]

Then I still don't understand why the letters to the churches need worry about that supposed distinction.

The "churches" in the book of Revelation are NOT the body of Christ.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[nikolai_42]

The "churches" in the book of Revelation are NOT the body of Christ.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Your words :

During this dispensation of His grace freely given there is no distinction.

Those churches were around during the "dispensation of Grace" when there is no distinction - yet you want to make a distinction after saying there is no distinction. That's at least the beginning of my confusion.

 

[Right Divider]

Your words :

Those churches were around during the "dispensation of Grace" when there is no distinction - yet you want to make a distinction after saying there is no distinction. That's at least the beginning of my confusion.

No, that is speaking to those churches in the future.

It's that Preterism that causes your confusion.

 

[nikolai_42]

No, that is speaking to those churches in the future.

It's that Preterism that causes your confusion.

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:
Rev 1:1

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Rev 1:19

Which is almost immediately followed up by Jesus' assessment of existing churches and His command to John to write "Unto the angel of the church of....". There is no evidence that this was intended to be written to churches in the future. On top of which, what immediately follows is :

After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
Revelation 4:1

It isn't a stretch of logic to say he has already written the things that are. He has already detailed what was current to his day. The supposed literalism of the dispensationalist breaks down here. The clear reading of Rev 2 and 3 is that it is to churches current to John's day (and we know there were churches in those cities in Asia Minor). To say that these are to churches well into the future is to read into the scriptures something that isn't there when what is written points to John writing about things that are (in his day).

{I should add that I'm not a preterist}

 

[Right Divider]

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:
Rev 1:1

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Rev 1:19

Which is almost immediately followed up by Jesus' assessment of existing churches and His command to John to write "Unto the angel of the church of....". There is no evidence that this was intended to be written to churches in the future. On top of which, what immediately follows is :

After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
Revelation 4:1

It isn't a stretch of logic to say he has already written the things that are. He has already detailed what was current to his day. The supposed literalism of the dispensationalist breaks down here. The clear reading of Rev 2 and 3 is that it is to churches current to John's day (and we know there were churches in those cities in Asia Minor). To say that these are to churches well into the future is to read into the scriptures something that isn't there when what is written points to John writing about things that are (in his day).

{I should add that I'm not a preterist}

God intervened... John did NOT know about the dispensation of the grace of God that would interrupt the program that Jesus and the twelve were operating under.

Sorry, but you seemed to be expressing the preterist view that all of the Bible has already happened.

 

[iamaberean]

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:
Rev 1:1

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Rev 1:19

Which is almost immediately followed up by Jesus' assessment of existing churches and His command to John to write "Unto the angel of the church of....". There is no evidence that this was intended to be written to churches in the future. On top of which, what immediately follows is :

After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
Revelation 4:1

It isn't a stretch of logic to say he has already written the things that are. He has already detailed what was current to his day. The supposed literalism of the dispensationalist breaks down here. The clear reading of Rev 2 and 3 is that it is to churches current to John's day (and we know there were churches in those cities in Asia Minor). To say that these are to churches well into the future is to read into the scriptures something that isn't there when what is written points to John writing about things that are (in his day).

{I should add that I'm not a preterist}

Preterist has a bad name but dispensation can not be proven when it requires someone's opinion in their interpretation of prophecies.

There is much in the book of Revelation that has not been fulfilled,
Rev_20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

In Matthew Jesus pointed out to his disciples that there would not be one stone left upon another when the temple would be destroyed. In 70 AD it was destroyed, just as Jesus said. That marked the end of the final generation of people that had lived under Law.

If you believe the above, many will call you a preterist. Don't be offended.

 

[Child of God]

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?

Paul was instructed by the Apostles and given letters and brothers to go with him to teach these things,

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Paul says that he was only instructed to remember the poor,

Gal 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

And we have the whole teaching of Paul that you can eat foods sacrificed to idols. 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10.

Then we have Revelation, that also explicitly mentions foods Sacrificed to Idols 2 or is it 3 times?

You have to pick what doctrine you are going to follow.

 

[Child of God]

Will you pick the doctrine backed up by at least 3 Witnesses,
The Apostles, the Holy Spirit and Jesus

Say do not eat foods sacrificed to idols.

OR

Will you pick the doctrine of Paul, that says idols are nothing but demons, it is OK to to eat foods sacrificed to demons if you are Ignorant, and if you hide from your brother it is OK?

 

[Child of God]

Hide in a corner, stuffing your face with food sacrificed to idols, as you brothers are looking for.

You must hide from the brothers, that you love the food sacrificed to idols.