5 JWO_07_04_RecapitulationofTheMeaningofRevelation2_14_0031
embed edited this page 2023-10-27 23:31:08 +00:00

Parent: JesusWordsOnly

Recapitulation of The Meaning of (Rev. 2:14)

To repeat, (Rev. 2:14) states:

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some
that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat
things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.

The Christians at Pergamum were being criticized by Jesus for some members holding to the "teaching of Balaam." Who was Balaam? He was a figure who precisely prefigures Paul.

The only missing pieces were first whether Paul taught it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. We saw in the prior chapter that Paul taught it is permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. (See page 117.)

The second missing piece was whether Paul also taught it was permissible to commit fornication. We saw first that in Jesus' day, adultery and fornication were synonymous in the underlying vernacular in which Jesus spoke. We also saw that Paul permitted an act of adultery that Jesus squarely prohibited, i.e., remarriage by a wife whose husband had no grounds for divorce or where a certificate of divorce had not been used at all.

Or, if we instead look at merely passages where Paul talks about fornication (which for Paul usually means unwed sex), Paul fares no better. While Paul has one, perhaps three verses, that disparage fornication, there is no verse clear-cut saying fornication is impermissible. Indeed, Paul's teachings lead Paulunists to insist Paul says fornication is permissible. All things are permissible, they quote Paul. Yet, not all things are expedient. So they insist, fornication may not be expedient, but it is not per se wrong. The Law is abrogated. To claim it is wrong per se is heretical legalism. Even if one performs fornication a thousand times a day, the young Luther says

Conclusion

Paul's grace teaching means we remain saved. Luther's youthful view is corroborated by every other mainstream interpreter of Paul's gospel. They appear to be correct because if you can lose your salvation for fornication then you keep it by obeying God, which would be a works-contingent salvation. Paul calls that heresy, plain and certain.

When you add up all the facts that parallel Paul to (Rev. 2:14), the conclusion is overwhelming. Paul is certainly the intended author of the "teaching of Balaam" that Jesus identified in (Rev. 2:14). He matches Balaam's life almost identically. He teaches it is pennissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Finally, he also teaches it is pennissible to commit fornication ( i.e ., adultery in remarriage). Paul is also understood by leading commentators to have taught fornication as he used the term (i.e., unwed sex) was

(a) occasionally permissible, although it was not necessarily expedient to fornicate, with utterly no negative consequence; and

(b) able to be committed repetitiously and without repentance with no repurcussion on salvation. There is therefore no ground to distinguish Paul from the teacher of Balaam's doctrine in (Rev. 2:14). Thus, Jesus was identifying Paul in Revelation 2:14 by referring to Balaam.