The Doctrine of Balaam is a mystery to some because they cannot understand its meaning. Balaam let his drive for money lead him to corrupt God's people for personal gain.

When I discuss the message to Pergamos in Revelation 2 (this article is an extension of that),  the way that I put it is that there will be exploitation for money (Balaam) and pre-eminence (Nicolaitans). These in Pergamos wanted exploitation while Jezebel wanted conversion. It is easy to note that Balaam is one focus in Revelation 2:14 but how did I come to summarise the meaning like this?

The Source

Where did this issue first arise?

the meaning of counsel in verse 16.

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

H1697 דָּבָר dabar (daw-ɓaw') n-m.

1. a word.

2. a saying.

3. (by implication) a matter (as spoken of).

4. (generically) a thing.

5. (adverbially) a cause.

6. (royally) a sovereign or royal edict, a matter or a word spoken by a king which carries the innate force of a royal command.

7. a chronicle (i.e. a record of events).

[from H1696]...

Young's literal translation says

From these it appears to be something that Balaam said that was considered the source of the problem. It might easily go unnoticed that the Hebrew word translated as matter in YLT and KJV is the same as the one translated as counsel in KJV and word in YLT. It would therefore be accurate to translate the same phrase as through the matter of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor. The Hebrew is translated to indicate that it was something spoken by Balaam that was at the root of the problem. That is not a necessary meaning of the word dabar and while there is no evidence to disprove that interpretation, bear in mind that because something is related to something uttered or spoken, does not mean the the utterance is the fundamental concern, but rather what matter caused it to be expressed.

The matter of Peor

Ba'al Pe'or is a baal associated with Mount Peor (Numbers 23:28).

Peor is where God blessed Israel through Balaam. Later on we see that it was also the seat of Baal worship for the Moabites.

Moses anger was over the above incident emanating from Baal Peor while they were at Shittim. It happened at the forty-second and final encampment of the Israelites (You would have to count them in Numbers 33 but from Numbers 33:49 I understand this to be the final encampment). Seven is a Biblical number of completion and this is 7x7. This is the tragedy that God is warning us about in Revelation i.e. we could lose it all at the very end of our ordeal. It was their final stop before they crossed the Jordan (Joshua 2:1). They had struggled through 40 years where God had purged out the old generation and now at the very end of it with a new generation about to start anew this terrible disaster that could have wiped them out completely. It does not seem like Balaam was even present so what matter of Peor could Moses mean? Israel eventually went to Peor to worship Baal with the Midianites and this is what Moses is angry about. This is the matter. From what Moses says about Balaam he had something to do with it but no precise saying is recorded in the Bible. What is recorded in the Bible concerning Balaam is that he was greedy for gain at the expense of obedience to God.

Making Gain

Paul taught that Christ's team of teachers did not make gain out of teaching God's word.

From the beginning it was Balaac's intention to make gain of Israel. What Balaam added is that he did it through the spiritual understanding that came from being a prophet of God. His motivation was greed. People wonder if Balaam was a genuine prophet and all I can say is this: the Bible says so. God never said that the only people that He works with are Israelites just that Israel would be His only nation. Some of us who are blessed by the goodness of God in our lives while we are not born into the commonwealth of Israel can let greed cause us to lose our most precious possession.

Balaam said many things

Balaam said many things. Most appear to be positive. To continue from where we left off in numbers.

He apparently said some negative things but those are not recorded in scripture. Any evidence of something negative that Balaam said must be pieced together from hints in scripture, but he never taught Israel anything. He taught Balaac. He did not teach Balaac to commit fornication (spiritual or otherwise) nor to eat meats sacrificed to idols because Balaac did all of those things before he met Balaam.

The Common Understanding

The Common understanding of the problem or matter of Balaam as far as God is concerned, is identified by several writers in the Bible.

Why this impression

Moses had fled to Midian and eventually married. His father-in-law Jethro was a wise man who feared God as we read in Exodus 18. The Midianites were the descendants of Midian, the son of Abraham and his wife Keturah (Genesis 25:1–2). Midianites therefore knew God. Moab sent to Balaam the Midianite asking him to curse Israel (Numbers 22:1). God said no.

They came back offering a lot more money which caused Balaam to check with God again.

Balaam got up early and went despite God telling him only go if they come back. This lead to a series of Blessings on Israel at the mouth of Balaam and apparently some final advice of Balaam to Balaac.

The meaning of Doctrine

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

G1322 διδαχή didache (d̮iy-d̮a-chee') n.

instruction (the act or the matter).

[from G1321]

KJV: doctrine, hath been taught

Root(s): G1321

Part of the misunderstanding over the doctrine of Balaam comes from assumptions about what the word doctrine means. I propose that while the Greek can be translated as meaning something spoken, the context of its use clearly demonstrates something more.

From the quotations above we see a range of applications of the word. Now combine the above with what follows here:

At this point it becomes a matter of faith. I believe that both Matthew 16:12 and Matthew 23:2-3 are thus saith the Lord. Based on this it could not have been only what they said that was the doctrine which Christ told them beware of, because He also told them All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. It does not make sense to say beware of what they say but do all that they say. So the doctrine went beyond what they said and included more. In their case it has to do with an attitude which Christ expressed at the end of Matthew 23:3, for they say, and do not. Their doctrine was to say the right thing BUT do something else therefore the doctrine goes beyond what we articulate but includes our approach to life.

Dissecting the account in Revelation

Breaking into Revelation

Notice the similarity with Thyatira

In Thyatira they had Jezebel herself but in Pergamos they had people who were of the same teaching/doctrine as Balaam. What's the difference? Jezebel (Jese-baal) was part of the Baal system but Balaam was not of Baal-peor, he was a prophet of God that was hired. He was just using it for profit i.e. making gain.

Let's go step by step.

there where?

In the church or in the city? Is He blaming the church for what is in the city? No. There has to means Church. Later on in the chapter He tells them to repent so it has to be something that they were doing that they could control and needed to change. They could not change society so these people that held this doctrine have to be people in the church.

them that hold

What do you mean hold? Did they refuse to let it go? Were they seen as acceptable Christians while still holding on to this?

the doctrine

A projection of our world view? We saw from the Pharisees that it does not mean teaching by word alone.

of Balaam, who taught Balac

Balaam taught Balaac something, he did not teach Israel. It was Balaam's doctrine/teaching that was at the root of Balaac's success against Israel but he did not teach it to Israel and the doctrine was not what he taught Balaac. The who taught Balaac identifies which Balaam and which incident the doctrine applies to but it does not say that the doctrine was what was passed on to Balaac.

to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel,

He taught him to cast a stumbling-block that would work on Israel! The reason why Balaam was hired in the first place was to cast a stumbling-block so Balaac knew about stumblingblocks. Balaam did not teach Balaac that stumblingblocks work. He taught him the right stumblingblock based on his inside knowledge of God. He taught him the right approach to getting what you want based on knowing how God thinks.

to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

First notice that it does not say spiritual fornication. Balaam taught no such thing. Israel already knew spiritual fornication because that is exactly what they did with the Golden Calf. Balaam taught physical fornication and so if the Bible claimed otherwise then one could legitimately say that the Bible spread something that was not true. Anyone who claims that it does say spiritual fornication would be are adding to the word of God. In this case the stumbling-block consisted of fornication (sex-appeal) and eating things (apparently the best food) sacrificed to idols, not unclean meats. This combination of a celebration involving eating food devoted to idols and having illicit sex would be seen as spiritual fornication by God, but Israel did not set out to learn spiritual fornication, they thought that it was great sport, they did not see the danger. It corrupted the leading families by its sex-appeal and revelry as with Zimry and Cosbi (Numbers 25:6-15). To me it might have been a protracted celebration, like a week long carnival, which would give the young people time to meet and become infatuated but also lose inhibitions by drinking. In other words it would have been a repeat of the Golden Calf which Balaam knew had previously almost cost them their very existence. As the drive to satisfy the craving increased the fear of God and His leadership decreased to the point where it was done in boldness. Balaam did not teach Balaac fornication etc. either, he taught him what would be effective as a stumblingblock against Israel; he gave him inside knowledge based on His relationship with God.

Next, is this identifying the teaching or Identifying the Balaam that God meant? In other words is it saying the doctrine of Francine who went to Foundation School (which identifies her by something that she did) or the doctrine of Francine who taught that fruit is all you need in life (which identifies the something said as a doctrine)?

The meaning of hold.

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

G2902 κρατέω krateo (kra-te'-ō) v.

to use strength, i.e. seize or retain.

{literally or figuratively}

[from G2904]

KJV: hold (by, fast), keep, lay hand (hold) on, obtain, retain, take (by)

Root(s): G2904

Compare: G1840, G2480, G4599

So this is something that the Church held on to or retained without being obvious heretics. It is something that can be identified and has already happened and will happen repeatedly in true Christian circles, since we are being warned that it affects true Christians.

If you check the meaning of taught some bible tools Wil be profuse and confusing, providing G1722 which is a preposition, but other interlinear tools show the Greek to be edidasken which is strong's G1321 as opposed to G1722. If you check that you get something looking similar to , the Greek word didasko.

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

G1321 διδάσκω didasko (d̮iy-d̮a'-skō) v.

to teach.

{in the same broad application as dao “to learn”}

[a prolonged, causative form of a primary verb dao “to learn”]

KJV: teach

Compare: G3100, G3129

If it is in fact G1722 then Balaam only accompanied Balaac but did not necesssarily teach anything.

The meaning of doctrine from the same source:

G1322 διδαχή didache (d̮iy-d̮a-chee') n.

instruction (the act or the matter).

[from G1321]

KJV: doctrine, hath been taught

Root(s): G1321

Now we see that taught is the root word from which the word translated doctrine comes. So taught and doctrine are just two ways of expressing the same thing in Greek and refers to any application of causing someone to learn. This comes from the meaning of taught which states: in the same broad application as dao to learn. Now going back to my earlier question, is this verse intended to identify Balaam so that we know which problem to look for, or is it describing the problem? Is the Way (in Peter), the error (in Jude) and teaching/doctrine (Revelation) the same thing? Is Balaam being specially identified with a different problem in Revelation than anywhere else in the Bible? Next I want to show that if you interpret this as being the description of the spiritual problem then it becomes contradictory and God does not contradict Himself.

Eating meats sacrificed to idols

It appears that eating meat sacrificed to idols is against the Law for Jews but it is not necessarily a problem for Christians. If eating meats sacrificed to idols is considered a spiritual problem then it is contradicting Paul's teaching on the shambles. The teaching in the Church on eating things submitted to idols.

According to this eating things sacrificed to idols is not a sin for Christians, the sin is not being considerate of others, and so to suggest that it is one of the seven fundamental things that destroy Churches is erroneous. In the case of Baal Peor it was not the food that was the problem either. It was the mind-set that you could participate in a celebration to a false God, eating and presumably drinking, and indulge in its by-product of illicit sex.

Teaching on Fornication

Now remember that this doctrine of Balaam is something that those in the Church held without being disfellowshipped. It was accepted, hence it cannot be something that the Church outright rejected. Could this be something as blatant as fornication? Fornication is sex before marriage. The Corinthians apparently did not know of Christ's teaching on this matter but it is explained by Matthew long before John wrote Revelation.

Before that it was clearly laid out in the Old Testament and the leagal recourse was in The tokens of virginity.

It was well understood by Jews in Christ's time as shown by Mary and Joseph

It was also at the core of the woman caught in the very act in John 8:1-11. Paul said that even the gentiles do not accept fornication in extremes. If fornication is to be understood in the traditional manner then this person in Corinth was not married to his father's wife but was having relations with her. It does not even say that his father was dead.

This was a clear violation of the Old Testament as well.

Paul went on later to add

And later when he repented

As far as I can see the procedure for fornication was clearly laid out in the Church. I do not see that the true Church held this teaching after this. The Church's teaching on fornication was never in doubt. It was consistently prohibited since the Old Testament. I do not see it as a problem that God's genuine people would hold, and I do not know of it as a historically consistent teaching/doctrine by any group in the true Church of God and cannot see it ever becoming one. So is God warning us about something that we (His true Church that keep the Commandments) have never had a problem with doctrinally?

On the other hand the problem of people making gain of the Church is not easily diagnosed and it is not on the level of the Ten Commandments as with fornication which is a blatant sin. However it (making gain) has often been taken for granted because of its similarity with what God's servants have been entitled to as treaders of the corn. Making gain is often a matter of degree or is relative to alternatives. It is therefore possible to conceal making gain. On the other hand there is no Christian Church that can claim or has claimed fornication as a teaching.

Back to Dissecting the account in Revelation

The Nicolaitans

Now why did God add verse 15? I believe that it was added because it was the same fundamental issue or an extension of the same problem.

That doctrine that Balaam lived by crept into the Church. The doctrine/behaviour was to obtain money by being devious and to obtain money by supporting others in being devious at the expense of God and His people. The nicolaitans did the same thing but their objective was preeminence.

The phrase hold the doctrine of is applied to both the Nicolaitans and Balaam. To me this says that it represents an identical situation from some basic perspective. So what do the Nicolaitans and Balaam have in common? They both used subterfuge or were devious, they both went against what they knew was the will of God, they both abused gifts.

The teacing of Balaam

To many people Revelation appears to be focussed on something that was said by Balaam. Josephus is a highly respected scholar and this is what he claims was recorded. It is not recorded anywhere in the Bible. It happened before Israel was a nation but Moses never recorded it. By the time of Josephus over a thousand years had passed and we do not know the credibility of Josephus' source. Going to Egypt is not unreasonable since the Moabites and the Midianites had been complicit from the Beginning and it was a Moabite woman, a princess called Kosbi, that was killed in the act with Zimri (Numbers 25). When Balaam fell into disfavour with Balaac he would also have been unwelcome at his home in Midian. Note especially verse 6 of chapter 6. This recounts what happened between Balaam and Balaac after Balaam had refused to curse Israel the final time.

Consider this excerpt from Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus.

Book IV, Chapter 6
Concerning Balaam The Prophet And What Kind Of Man He Was
.
.
.

6. But Balak being very angry that the Israelites were not cursed, sent away Balaam without thinking him worthy of any honor. Whereupon, when he was just upon his journey, in order to pass the Euphrates, he sent for Balak, and for the princes of the Midianites, and spake thus to them: O Balak, and you Midianites that are here present, (for I am obliged even without the will of God to gratify you,) it is true no entire destruction can seize upon the nation of the Hebrews, neither by war, nor by plague, nor by scarcity of the fruits of the earth, nor can any other unexpected accident be their entire ruin; for the providence of God is concerned to preserve them from such a misfortune; nor will it permit any such calamity to come upon them whereby they may all perish; but some small misfortunes, and those for a short time, whereby they may appear to be brought low, may still befall them; but after that they will flourish again, to the terror of those that brought those mischiefs upon them. So that if you have a mind to gain a victory over them for a short space of time, you will obtain it by following my directions: Do you therefore set out the handsomest of such of your daughters as are most eminent for beauty, (10) and proper to force and conquer the modesty of those that behold them, and these decked and trimmed to the highest degree able. Then do you send them to be near camp, and give them in charge, that the young men of the Hebrews desire their allow it them; and when they see they are enamored of them, let them take leaves; and if they entreat them to stay, let give their consent till they have persuaded leave off their obedience to their own laws, the worship of that God who established them to worship the gods of the Midianites and for by this means God will be angry at them (11). Accordingly, when Balaam had suggested counsel to them, he went his way...Flavius JosephusAntiquities of the Jews

I cannot vouch for the validity of Josephus but I can say that the Bible does not record this teaching of Balaam specifically. What it (the Bible) does show and what this extract attempts to support is that Balaam never taught Israel but he somehow taught Balaac that the will of God can be circumvented for personal gain. You can know that what God wants is different from what you want but use your spiritual understanding and other spiritual gifts to get what you want despite being clearly told that it is against God's will. It is clear that both Balaac and Balaam knew the will of God but were determined to achieve their objectives regardless. Balaam could only teach Balaac what he knew and we can piece this together from the scripture, but it is not recorded anywhere in the Bible that Balaam said anything negative against God's people.  From the Bible narrative what Balaam said about God's people was directly controlled by God. I believe that we can only conjecture based on what actually occurred over the entire period that they were in contact and we cannot rely on Josephus to establish scripture. Balaam was very careful to stay within the boundaries that God set but he was straining at the leash.