Among scholars who have recognized
parallels between the situations in Pergamum and Thyatira and the situation in
Corinth, three has often been a tendency to interpret the responses of Paul and
the author of Revelation as essentially the same on this issue. A wedge is
drawn between Paul and the Corinthian ‘strong’ to equal that between John and
Balaam/Jezebel. But does an analysis of their respective responses really
support such a conclusion, or is Paul’s pastoral response more accommodating to
his Corinthian brethren than John’s message to his prophetic rivals?
The compromise position of the
so-called ‘Apostolic Decree’, as recorded in the book of Acts, takes into
account the Jewish Christian sensibilities of those associated with Jerusalem
over a number of issues, including that of idol meat, and may well represent
an early form of the so-called ‘Noahic Commandments’. Though dispensing with
the requirement of Gentile circumcision in the New Age, the decree nevertheless
places certain constraints upon Gentile converts:
For it has seemed good to the Holy
Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden (μηδεν πλεον επιτιθεσθαι υμιν βαρος) than these essentials: that you
abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols (ειδωλοθυτων) and from blood and from what is
strangled and from fornication (πορνειας)
(Acts 15.28-29).
The extent to which Luke has
carefully preserved historical tradition about the decree, and in particular
whether this is traditional wording or his own, continues to be hotly debated,
as do a whole host of issues relating to the so-called ‘Jerusalem Council’ of
Acts 15. Particularly pertinent in this discussion are the respective responses
of Paul and the author of Revelation to the idol-meat issue: for Paul, writing
to the Corinthians, seems either unaware of the letter or content to disregard
it, while John appears not only to require a strict enforcement of it but even
to echo its wording.
Paul’s position on the eating of
idol meat (1 Cor. 8-10) would surely have been regarded as a ‘sell-out’ by
conservative Jewish Christians, his appeal to the principle of love
notwithstanding, and is puzzling for its lack of reference to the ‘Apostolic
Decree’ (Is this because Paul is unaware of such a decree, or is he aware of it
but rejects it or regards it as inappropriate for a church such as Corinth? Or
should we prefer the more complex thesis of J.C. Hurd, The Origin of 1
Corinthians [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, new edn, 1983]: that he
previously tried to enforce it in Corinth [in his ‘previous letter’] but now
attempts a compromise?). His carefully worded and complex answer, covering
three chapters of his letter, reveals that he is treading a careful path
through a difficult issue. Despite his sympathies for the ‘weak’, Paul
nevertheless numbers himself among the ‘strong’, seeing eating itself as a
matter of indifference (1 Cor. 8.8; 10.25-26), unless it would offend the
weaker brethren. For Paul, where and why one eats is more important than what.
He is clear that it is permissible for a Christian to eat meat from the local
market, or at a dinner hosted by a pagan neighbour, unless it offends against
conscience (1 Cor. 10.23-30). He seems to recognize the detrimental effect not
only upon wealthy Corinthian patrons but, by extension, on the whole community,
of a strict avoidance of idol meat. On the other hand, he is equally clear that
participation in pagan sacrificial rites is to be condemned (1 Cor. 10.14-22),
even if such are associated with demons rather than real ‘gods’ (cf. 1 Cor.
8.4-6). It is less clear, however, whether this would rule out participation in
banquets in the precincts of a pagan temple, perhaps arranged by trade-guilds
or voluntary associations; given 1 Cor. 8.7-13, it is likely that this is
permitted, consciences allowing (v. 9, ‘But take care that this liberty of
yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak’). This would fit
with Paul’s stance elsewhere: idol meat, like circumcision (Gal. 5.6) and
special days (Rom. 14.5), is essentially a matter of indifference.
The author of Revelation, on the
contrary, advocates an uncompromising stance with regard to the issue.
In no way does he distinguish, as Paul seems to, between participating in a
sacrificial meal in a pagan temple and eating idol meat in a non-cultic
context, whether at home, in a temple dining-room or at a neighbour’s house (There
is no obvious support from the text for the suggestion of Mounce [Revelation,
p. 98] that ειδωλοθυτα ‘probably refers to meat which h
was eaten at pagan feasts rather than sold in the open market after having been
offered to idols’). He condemns certain members of two churches, Pergamum and
Thyatira, for eating food sacrificed to idols (ειδωλοθυτα) and practicing
‘immorality/harlotry’ (πορνευσαι),
two of the four practices expressly forbidden Gentile converts in the
‘Apostolic Decree’ of Acts 15 (A number of scholars have pointed to echoes of
the ‘Apostolic Decree’ in Rev. 2; besides the condemnation of ‘idol meat’ and
‘immorality’, the letter to Thyatira declares to the faithful that ‘I do not
lay upon you any other burden [βαρος]’
[2.24], echoing the language of Acts 15.28). In the letter to Pergamum, he
describes this as ‘the teaching of Balaam; in that to Thyatira, it is
attributed to a prophetess in the community whom he calls ‘Jezebel’. If the
‘teaching of Balaam’ is to be identified with the ‘teaching of the Nicolaitans’
(2.15), then this ‘liberal’ Christian stance has also infiltrated the church in
Ephesus, though without making much headway (‘Yet this is to your credit: you
hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate’, 2.6). It is hard to see
how this essentially pragmatic position of ‘Balaam’ and ‘Jezebel’ differs from
the approach that Pauline Christians might take, particularly the ‘strong’ in
cities like Corinth (apparently with the apostle’s own blessing), or, we might
presume, Ephesus and Thyatira. In the face of such teaching, John advocates a
harsh rejection of idol meat which would lead to Christian non-participation in
Roman society (A similar stance is found in Did. 6.3: περι δε τηε βρωσεως, ο δυνασαι βαστασον απο δε του ειδωλοθυτου λιαν προσεχε λατρεια γαρ εστι θεων νεκρων). (Ian Boxall, ”’For Paul’ or
‘For Cephas’? The Book of Revelation and Early Asian Christianity,” in Understanding,
Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton, ed.
Christopher Rowland and Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis [Journal for the Study of
the New Testament Supplement Series153; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998], 208-11)
