"What do I imply then?" - connecting 1 Cor 8 and 10

“Paul responds to the objection question by stating that there are sometimes demons behind idols - they are not nothing.”
Neither verse 19 nor verse 20 qualifies what Paul says by saying that this is only true some of the time.
What basis then do you have for saying that Paul said demons are only sometimes behind idols?

[Dan Miller]

I should probably have written “at least sometimes.”

We’ve had this discussion before, but I think each chapter is bearing on the same topic and building to the conclusion: Don’t do it. Reason one: the weakness of the brother (potential for stumbling/relapse), Reason two, the worth of the gospel (Ch 9, testimony, prioritizing gospel concerns over personal indulgence), and Reason three, the wickedness of the heart (ch 10, the idols, though nothing in themselves, are the locus of demonic activity, don’t be deceived, you are at risk).

Anyway, in my opinion, it is a layered argument moving from the most basic level to higher concerns and an ultimate conclusion.

Yes, I agree with that. The point of ch 8 is a starting point, not the whole point.

[Dan Miller]

Don, You’re right - we’ve discussed this before (perhaps an understatement).

I’m not necessarily trying to dredge up the whole conversation again. I’m mainly asking in this thread what 10:19 means near the end of Paul’s argument against temple-eating. I have stated that 10:19 means that Paul knew he was contradicting the eaters. What do you think of that?

[RajeshG]

“Paul responds to the objection question by stating that there are sometimes demons behind idols - they are not nothing.”

Neither verse 19 nor verse 20 qualifies what Paul says by saying that this is only true some of the time.

What basis then do you have for saying that Paul said demons are only sometimes behind idols?

10 Hear what the Lord says to you, people of Israel. 2 This is what the Lord says:

“Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
though the nations are terrified by them.
3 For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.
5 Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good.”

[Kevin Miller]

What about Jeremiah 10:1-5? These idols don’t seem to have demons behind them. They are only pieces of wood that have been adorned. Do you think an idol such as described in this passage would have a demon behind it?

10 Hear what the Lord says to you, people of Israel. 2 This is what the Lord says:

“Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
though the nations are terrified by them.
3 For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.
5 Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good.”

[RajeshG]

The statements in Jeremiah 10:1-5 have no bearing on what we are to understand about the spiritual realities behind the idols when they are worshiped by humans. They are speaking of the idols as material objects in and of themselves and not about what happens when humans worship those objects by offering sacrifices to them.

Jeremiah 10:5 - “They can do no harm, nor can they do any good.’

I Cor. 8:8 - “we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.”

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

The statements in Jeremiah 10:1-5 have no bearing on what we are to understand about the spiritual realities behind the idols when they are worshiped by humans. They are speaking of the idols as material objects in and of themselves and not about what happens when humans worship those objects by offering sacrifices to them.

Isn’t it significant that the material objects are spoken of in Jeremiah 10:5 with similar words to those used for food in I Cor. 8:8?

Jeremiah 10:5 - “They can do no harm, nor can they do any good.’

I Cor. 8:8 - “we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.”

No, it is not significant. The point in 1 Corinthians 10 is about what happens when humans engage in a wicked activity in relation to the idol—offering sacrifices to it. In the context of engaging in idolatrous worship in that manner, eating what is sacrificed on the altar makes you a partaker of the altar:
1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

BGT 1 Corinthians 10:18 βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα· οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν;
When things that have been sacrificed to an idol are eaten in a worship context, the eaters come into fellowship with demons:
1 Corinthians 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

BGT 1 Corinthians 10:20 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ [θύουσιν] · οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.
Eating in a worship context things that have been offered to an idol makes you a partaker of the altar and brings you into fellowship with demons. The idol itself is just a lifeless material object, but when you worship it by sacrificing to it and then eat what has been sacrificed to it, you come into fellowship with demons.
God does not want humans ever to have fellowship with demons!

[RajeshG]

No, it is not significant. The point in 1 Corinthians 10 is about what happens when humans engage in a wicked activity in relation to the idol—offering sacrifices to it. In the context of engaging in idolatrous worship in that manner, eating what is sacrificed on the altar makes you a partaker of the altar:

Kevin,

Dan has already indicated that he does not want his thread to get bogged down in the discussion of these points. I do not want to hijack his thread so we will have to discontinue this discussion here. If you want to continue it privately, I’ll be glad to do that with you. Or, you could start another thread to continue this discussion.
My final word concerning this point in this thread: I never said that the Christians were sacrificing to idols.

Dan, I think if conscience and consideration of the weaker brother were the only issue with eating meat in the idol’s temple (or in a context where the meat was clearly connected with idolatry), then 1 Cor 8 basically equals Rm 14.

So Paul’s arguments in chapter 8 are concessive (somewhat) to the strong brother’s arguments, but with the caveat that the weak brother’s conscience is more important than the strong brother’s conscience.

However, the argument doesn’t stop there. Chapter 9 points out that the gospel is worth all kinds of sacrifice, including my rights. So my rights as a strong brother are on the table, and need to be conceded to the overriding importance of the gospel.

Finally, however, the point the strong brother isn’t considering is the reality of the weak brother’s point: idolatry is fellowship with demons.

Taking all those points together, Paul gives a strong prohibition, followed by some minor concessions in the case where meat is eaten in a context where it might be “idol meat” but isn’t necessarily so and no one is mentioning it.

Didache 6.3 (Holmes):

Now concerning food, bear what you are able, but in any case keep strictly away from meat sacrificed to idols, for it involves the worship of dead gods

Didache 6.3 (Brannan):

And concerning food, you bear what you are able, but regarding food sacrificed to idols be scrupulously on your guard for it is worship of dead gods

[Dan Miller]

Don Johnson wrote:Dan, I think if conscience and consideration of the weaker brother were the only issue with eating meat in the idol’s temple (or in a context where the meat was clearly connected with idolatry), then 1 Cor 8 basically equals Rm 14.

So Paul’s arguments in chapter 8 are concessive (somewhat) to the strong brother’s arguments, but with the caveat that the weak brother’s conscience is more important than the strong brother’s conscience.

I like that word - concessive. And I appreciate the add-on (somewhat). But it still doesn’t answer in what way Paul concedes their point. We agree, I think, that Paul is in some way conceding their point that they have a right to eat and do so out of knowledge. And I think we agree that ch.8-9 represent a passionate argument that one should voluntarily not exercise his rights out of love. But the question I’m driving at here is whether the “right” of the strong was legitimate.

Paul conceded that they did have the right to recline and eat. In what sense did he concede that?

You’re forcing me to actually go back and read the text! (not a bad thing)

These are preliminary thoughts, but isn’t the concession of chapter 8 on the grounds of substance rather than location? The actual eating of idol meat is no big deal, vv. 4-6, but the issue in ch. 8 is where they are eating, the idol temple itself (v.10). Paul goes farther than that in v. 13, extending the “not making my brother stumble” principle to refusing all idol meat altogether, regardless of location.

[Dan Miller]

Don Johnson wrote:However, the argument doesn’t stop there. Chapter 9 points out that the gospel is worth all kinds of sacrifice, including my rights. So my rights as a strong brother are on the table, and need to be conceded to the overriding importance of the gospel.

Finally, however, the point the strong brother isn’t considering is the reality of the weak brother’s point: idolatry is fellowship with demons.

Taking all those points together, Paul gives a strong prohibition, followed by some minor concessions in the case where meat is eaten in a context where it might be “idol meat” but isn’t necessarily so and no one is mentioning it.

Ok - about what I underlined. The strong brother did consider the question that the weak brother’s point answers. The question was, “Can we eat in the temple?” They concluded that they could go and eat because it was fellowship with nothing. And Paul seems to concede this point in ch.8 in some sense.

You will notice in ch. 10 if the meat is unidentified as idol meat, it is permitted to eat (vv. 24-32). As soon as it is identified, it is prohibited for three reasons: conscience, gospel priorities, and fellowship with demons.

V. 9 “this right of yours” refers to what precedes, so here is the context:

v. 4. We know there is no such thing as an idol

v. 5-6. though there are many so-called gods, there is only One God and one Lord Jesus Christ

v. 7 not all men have this knowledge, and eat idol meat as if it is sacrificed to a real thing, defiling their conscience

V. 8 but food (idol meat) makes no actual difference between us and God

So note here: eating the meat makes no difference in your standing with God, Paul agrees with that. However, some people eat as if it is offered to another god, which defiles their Christian conscience.

So verse 9 says you need to take care how this liberty (eating meat) will affect another’s conscience.

So far I think he is speaking generally, eating the meat in a non-idol temple context.

Verse 10 is offered as a clear way of showing how the conscience is defiled: eating the meat in the idol temple. This makes it all the worse. Again, in chapter 10, he states in the last two illustrations that eating the meat itself is ok, as long as it isn’t identified as idol meat.

Paul’s concession is that the meat eaten without respect to the idol context is just meat. As soon as you add the idol context, it becomes a problem.

Well, you are taking “for” to be connected to “liberty” whereas I am taking it to be connected to “stumbling block”

“for” is not an “equals sign” - it is an explanation. If the eating of idol meat is something permissible in itself, how can it become a stumbling block? Verse 10 explains. In V. 10, the fact that it is idol’s meat is crystal clear, and that is what Paul prohibits throughout.

But your example isn’t exactly parallel. A new element is added in v. 10 which wasn’t mentioned at all in the previous nine verses. It is the new element that is the issue. This leads Paul to the general prohbition, in spite of rights/knowledge that may exist

Of course it is temple idol meant. If it was from the local butcher shop, it wouldn’t be idol meat at all.

So adding the detail of sitting down in the temple adds a new wrinkle to the problem. The strong were right, in a sense, outside of the context of the temple, the meat was just meat. That’s the “right” and the “knowledge”. But there is a danger that comes with this right and knowledge and Paul goes to the specifics of sitting down in the idol temple as first of all being harmful to the conscience of the weaker brother.

As I think about it, it seems to me that the argument was about the meat outside temple. The added information in v. 10 could be something that even the strong wouldn’t do (I realize I am arguing here against something I’ve previously said). Perhaps what Paul is doing is adding that context to help the strong realize why the weak have a problem with eating the meat at all.

So technically they are right. The meat is just meat. But the association creates a conscience problem, so he prohibits it on that basis in ch. 8. He goes on to prohibit it for two other reasons in ch. 9 and 10.

Interesting that Tyler’s quotes from the Didache indicate that the “no idol meat at all ever” became the default position of the early church.

[Don Johnson]

Interesting that Tyler’s quotes from the Didache indicate that the “no idol meat at all ever” became the default position of the early church.

I would say that’s pretty typical for organizations, in our time as well as in theirs. Since there are a lot of different arguments about what can be done, and what can’t be done, and under what circumstances, and considering conscience, etc., it’s always easier to just take the “forbid” position, as that’s the practical, “safe” position for an organization, and therefore no thought, time, or energy need be wasted discussing or considering it.

Unfortunately, the disadvantage of taking this easy way out is that after a number of years, the practical position has been around so long, that the original arguments are forgotten, and that position morphs from being a practical one to a theological one. No longer is it “we don’t do that.” Now it’s “no one should *ever* do that, and we separate from those who do.”

I am not quite so sure about that any longer. verse 10 is the only mention of the idol temples in the passage (εἰδωλείῳ noun dative neuter singular common from εἰδωλεῖον). In verses 1, 4, 7 and 10 you have εἰδωλόθυτος, ie, “τό εἰδωλόθυτον and τά εἰδωλόθυτα denote the flesh left over from the heathen sacrifices; it was either eaten at feasts, or sold (by the poor and the miserly) in the market” (Thayer).

The question is, are you reading “temples” into v. 1, 4, 7 when the issue is the food itself, not the temples? In the conclusion of this section, Paul says:

1Co 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

Meat is: κρέα noun accusative neuter plural common from κρέας, not “idol meat” but simply meat of any kind.

So Paul’s concession is that the εἰδωλόθυ​​​​​​​τος is just meat, that is true, but it is meat with a particular association which can cause stumbling. He shows an extreme example, eating meat in the idol’s temple, and how that causes stumbling, and then concludes that he would give up meat altogether to avoid causing anyone to stumble.

Otherwise, to get back to your question, what is the concession actually about? Is it eating meat in the idol’s temple or is it eating idol-meat itself? Is he contradicting himself in v. 10?

chapter 10 shows that idol meat can be eaten outside the temple also. Paul’s rule, as long as the association isn’t known or raised, the meat is ok.

So the concession of ch 8 stands - we know the idol itself is nothing, there is nothing wrong with the meat itself, but using this knowledge and liberty with no thought for weak conscience believers is wrong.

We keep going over the same ground. Hopefully you will see that the idol meat is able to be consumed outside the temple precincts. Perhaps we can get somewhere if you can see this

[Dan Miller]

I do see that 10:25-30 is about market meat.

But how does that prove that ch8 must include references to market meat?

in your earlier post, you said

First, there is scholarship that the term εἰδωλόθυτόν indicated food offered to idols and eaten in the temple.

https://legacy.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/Library/TynBull_1993_44_2_02_With…

But regardless, v10 is certainly about people with “knowledge” eating in the temple.

Right?

And that v10 provides the explanation for why the strong must be careful with their liberty.

Right?

you imply here that it is only considered idol meat if eaten in the temple.

10:25ff shows that is not the case