Does God accept worship from some unbelievers?
1 Samuel 1:28 Therefore also I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord. And he worshipped the Lord there.
1 Samuel 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.
A comparison of these two verses shows that Samuel as a young child was worshiping the Lord in the house of the Lord (cf. 1 Sam. 1:24) before he knew the Lord. Does this passage teach that God accepts worship from some unbelievers?
- 236 views
[RajeshG]Excellent point indeed. That is a very important lesson to be gained from Samuel’s worship.No, worship is the foremost activity that God demands of His creatures. Whenever He reveals to us information about worship taking place, it is significant information. Because of Samuel’s being very young, this passage supports the position that very young children can worship God and must do so under the proper direction of parents and other spiritual leaders. We do not need to know that they are saved before they can and should be taught and directed to worship God.
In addition to the passages about Samuel, Lydia, and Cornelius, Acts 17 provides more revelation pertaining to the question of God’s accepting worship from some unbelievers:
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
These unbelievers were ignorantly worshiping a God that they did not even know!
[RajeshG]Just as with Samuel, these verses do not say that God was accepting the worship. Of course, just as with Samuel, the counterpoint is true as well. The verses do not say that God was rejecting the worship, and this second point is likely the most important one.In addition to the passages about Samuel, Lydia, and Cornelius, Acts 17 provides more revelation pertaining to the question of God’s accepting worship from some unbelievers:
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
These unbelievers were ignorantly worshiping a God that they did not even know!
I’ve been thinking about God’s acceptance and rejection of worship. God deserves to be worshipped by everyone and everything. Therefore, I’m thinking that God’s default position is to accept worship, unless there is a specific reason why some particular person’s worship is to be rejected.
With Palm Sunday just happening, I was thinking about the crowds of people worshipping as Jesus rode in. I don’t think all of them were believers, even though Luke 19:37 calls them “a large crowd of his disciples.” I think a great many were just following him in hopes that he would deliver them from Rome. When that didn’t happen, they stopped following. Even so, Jesus was accepting their worship. When he was told by the Pharisees to quiet them down, he answered in verse 40, “I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.” So it seems Jesus would even accept worship from inanimate objects. That’s how much he deserves worship.
[Kevin Miller]Any worship that God accepts has to be worship that is in keeping with who He is, what He has done, and what He has revealed about Himself. We can be certain that God does not accept any worship that has any element of idolatry or the occult in it or is connected with either of those wicked spheres of human activities that involve evil supernatural influence upon humans.I’ve been thinking about God’s acceptance and rejection of worship. God deserves to be worshipped by everyone and everything. Therefore, I’m thinking that God’s default position is to accept worship, unless there is a specific reason why some particular person’s worship is to be rejected.
[RajeshG]Earlier, you quoted Acts 17:22-23 and then wrote “These unbelievers were ignorantly worshiping a God that they did not even know!” Now you’re saying, “Any worship that God accepts has to be worship that is in keeping with who He is, what He has done, and what He has revealed about Himself.” Since the people in Acts 17 were ignorant of the true God, they didn’t have any idea of who God was or what he had done. Paul needed to tell them those things, but God had been accepting their worship before they even knew those things. Or perhaps you are now changing your mind about Acts 17:22-23 being an appropriate example of God accepting worship from unbelievers.Any worship that God accepts has to be worship that is in keeping with who He is, what He has done, and what He has revealed about Himself. We can be certain that God does not accept any worship that has any element of idolatry or the occult in it or is connected with either of those wicked spheres of human activities that involve evil supernatural influence upon humans.
[Kevin Miller]No, I am not changing my mind about anything. I am working toward formulating a more biblical understanding of divine acceptance of worship.Earlier, you quoted Acts 17:22-23 and then wrote “These unbelievers were ignorantly worshiping a God that they did not even know!” Now you’re saying, “Any worship that God accepts has to be worship that is in keeping with who He is, what He has done, and what He has revealed about Himself.” Since the people in Acts 17 were ignorant of the true God, they didn’t have any idea of who God was or what he had done. Paul needed to tell them those things, but God had been accepting their worship before they even knew those things. Or perhaps you are now changing your mind about Acts 17:22-23 being an appropriate example of God accepting worship from unbelievers.
It is incorrect to say, “They didn’t have any idea of who God was or what he had done.” People who have never heard anything about the true God still know from creation and their conscience of the existence of the true God:
Psalm 19:1
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
These people did know His eternal power and Godhead from what He has made.
[RajeshG]I see. I was just trying to restate your earlier comment and I did so in the wrong way. Sorry. When you said, “”These unbelievers were ignorantly worshiping a God that they did not even know!” you were actually meaning “These unbelievers were ignorantly worshipping a God whose eternal power and Godhead were already known by them.” I didn’t catch that the first time.No, I am not changing my mind about anything. I am working toward formulating a more biblical understanding of divine acceptance of worship.
It is incorrect to say, “They didn’t have any idea of who God was or what he had done.” People who have never heard anything about the true God still know from creation and their conscience of the existence of the true God:
Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
These people did know His eternal power and Godhead from what He has made.
Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?
Acts 17:23 speaks of unbelieving people who were ignorantly worshiping the God whom they did not know, but Proverbs 21:27 says that the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination. How do we harmonize these seemingly conflicting statements?
[RajeshG]I don’t think the statements are conflicting at all. Proverbs 21 tells us that idolatrous sacrifices are not accepted by God. Acts 17:23 speaks of an inscribed altar. Since it was an altar, we can clear indication that sacrifices of an idolatrous nature were being offered to the this “unknown god.” When Paul educated the people regarding the identity of this unknown God, Paul did not give them any indication that their idolatrous worship had been accepted by the unknown God. In fact, in Acts 17:29-30, Paul says, “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” These verses tell us that idolatrous worship is not in keeping with who God is, and therefore the people need to repent. That is a clear condemnation of idolatrous worship and not a statement of acceptance of such worship.Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?
Acts 17:23 speaks of unbelieving people who were ignorantly worshiping the God whom they did not know, but Proverbs 21:27 says that the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination. How do we harmonize these seemingly conflicting statements?
[Kevin Miller]I do not think your understanding is correct. The text does not provide any indication that they had an idol before whom that altar was to the unknown God. Because the altar was to an unknown God, they would not have known how to represent Him with an idol the way that would have known had it been any of the other gods that they already knew how they were represented.I don’t think the statements are conflicting at all. Proverbs 21 tells us that idolatrous sacrifices are not accepted by God. Acts 17:23 speaks of an inscribed altar. Since it was an altar, we can clear indication that sacrifices of an idolatrous nature were being offered to the this “unknown god.” When Paul educated the people regarding the identity of this unknown God, Paul did not give them any indication that their idolatrous worship had been accepted by the unknown God. In fact, in Acts 17:29-30, Paul says, “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” These verses tell us that idolatrous worship is not in keeping with who God is, and therefore the people need to repent. That is a clear condemnation of idolatrous worship and not a statement of acceptance of such worship.
Paul certainly did preach against idolatrous worship (cf. Acts 17:16), etc in his message, but it is not at all clear to me from the text that he was condemning what they were doing on that altar as idolatrous worship vs. condemning them for their idolatrous worship that they engaged in on all their other altars.
[RajeshG]So is there some approved, God-honoring worship they could have been doing on “that altar” that was located in the midst of “all their other altars” that were used for idolatry? What Bible passage would allow for acceptable sacrifices to God to be performed in association with all this other idolatrous worship?I do not think your understanding is correct. The text does not provide any indication that they had an idol before whom that altar was to the unknown God. Because the altar was to an unknown God, they would not have known how to represent Him with an idol the way that would have known had it been any of the other gods that they already knew how they were represented.
Paul certainly did preach against idolatrous worship (cf. Acts 17:16), etc in his message, but it is not at all clear to me from the text that he was condemning what they were doing on that altar as idolatrous worship vs. condemning them for their idolatrous worship that they engaged in on all their other altars.
Besides, the Bible doesn’t say there wasn’t an idol of some kind by the altar, does it? There could have been. We just don’t know, and the lack of an idol itself doesn’t make the idolatrous sacrifice any less idolatrous. Maybe they didn’t feel the need for a separate representation, since they had the altar itself inscribed to the unknown god.
[Kevin Miller]Yes, you are right the Bible does not say that there wasn’t an idol. Had there not been an idol to which they sacrificed on that altar, what would have made it an idolatrous sacrifice? An inscription would not have automatically made it so, as far as I can tell.So is there some approved, God-honoring worship they could have been doing on “that altar” that was located in the midst of “all their other altars” that were used for idolatry? What Bible passage would allow for acceptable sacrifices to God to be performed in association with all this other idolatrous worship?
Besides, the Bible doesn’t say there wasn’t an idol of some kind by the altar, does it? There could have been. We just don’t know, and the lack of an idol itself doesn’t make the idolatrous sacrifice any less idolatrous. Maybe they didn’t feel the need for a separate representation, since they had the altar itself inscribed to the unknown god.
[RajeshG]Earlier you said, “We can be certain that God does not accept any worship that has any element of idolatry or the occult in it or is connected with either of those wicked spheres of human activities that involve evil supernatural influence upon humans.” A sacrificial altar in the midst of a area of idolatrous worship is certainly an “element of idolatry.” If nothing else, it’s location on Mars Hill made it “connected with” all the other idolatry taking place there. Acts 17:16 says that Paul “saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” It doesn’t say the city was “wholly given to idolatry except for one altar that didn’t have an idol next to it.”Yes, you are right the Bible does not say that there wasn’t an idol. Had there not been an idol to which they sacrificed on that altar, what would have made it an idolatrous sacrifice? An inscription would not have automatically made it so, as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, Paul’s sermon directly links the inscribed altar to their idolatrous worship. He describes the way he noticed the altar by saying, “I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions.” He’s talking about the idolatrous worship he sees in the area where the altar is. He then declares the identity of the true God and declares the true God “dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands.” He’s basically saying, “You are trying to cover all your bases here by not leaving out some god, but the true God is NOT worshipped in this idolatrous way that your altar represents.”
[Kevin Miller]Had Paul believed that what they were doing on that altar was an idolatrous sacrifice, he would not have said that they are worshiping ignorantly an unknown God. He would have denounced all of their worship as false worship, including what they did on that altar. He would have said that there is a God whom you have not worshiped at all.Earlier you said, “We can be certain that God does not accept any worship that has any element of idolatry or the occult in it or is connected with either of those wicked spheres of human activities that involve evil supernatural influence upon humans.” A sacrificial altar in the midst of a area of idolatrous worship is certainly an “element of idolatry.” If nothing else, it’s location on Mars Hill made it “connected with” all the other idolatry taking place there. Acts 17:16 says that Paul “saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” It doesn’t say the city was “wholly given to idolatry except for one altar that didn’t have an idol next to it.”
Furthermore, Paul’s sermon directly links the inscribed altar to their idolatrous worship. He describes the way he noticed the altar by saying, “I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions.” He’s talking about the idolatrous worship he sees in the area where the altar is. He then declares the identity of the true God and declares the true God “dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands.” He’s basically saying, “You are trying to cover all your bases here by not leaving out some god, but the true God is NOT worshipped in this idolatrous way that your altar represents.”
In addition, there is a word in the Greek text that the KJV does not account for:
Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
BGT Acts 17:23 διερχόμενος γὰρ καὶ ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν εὗρον καὶ βωμὸν ἐν ᾧ ἐπεγέγραπτο· Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ. ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν.
NAU Acts 17:23 “For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
NET Acts 17:23 For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: ‘To an unknown god.’ Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you.
That kai distinguishes between the altars on which they sacrificed to their idols and the altar on which they did not sacrifice to any idol but sacrificed to a God that they did not know.
[RajeshG]The way I read his sermon, that is exactly what he was telling them. They weren’t worshipping God at all because they didn’t even know him. This is why he told the people “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him.” This is why he warned then that God “now commandeth all men every where to repent” and that God “hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness.”Had Paul believed that what they were doing on that altar was an idolatrous sacrifice, he would not have said that they are worshiping ignorantly an unknown God. He would have denounced all of their worship as false worship, including what they did on that altar. He would have said that there is a God whom you have not worshiped at all.
I’m really surprised by your position here, Rajesh. You’ve usually had such high standards regarding the worship that God accepts.
[Kevin Miller]Elsewhere, Paul says that idolaters suppress the truth in unrighteousness. He does not say that they are ignorant. If your understanding of what Paul is saying is correct, how do you explain Paul’s saying that they were worshiping Him ignorantly if in fact they were not worshiping Him at all?The way I read his sermon, that is exactly what he was telling them. They weren’t worshipping God at all because they didn’t even know him. This is why he told the people “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him.” This is why he warned then that God “now commandeth all men every where to repent” and that God “hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness.”
I’m really surprised by your position here, Rajesh. You’ve usually had such high standards regarding the worship that God accepts.
[RajeshG]They were worshipping an “unknown” entity. That automatically make their worship “ignorant.”Elsewhere, Paul says that idolaters suppress the truth in unrighteousness. He does not say that they are ignorant. If your understanding of what Paul is saying is correct, how do you explain Paul’s saying that they were worshiping Him ignorantly if in fact they were not worshiping Him at all?
Since Paul was describing their worship as idolatrous, and telling them that the true God does not get worshipped that way, then we can be sure that God did not accept their worship.
[Kevin Miller]What Paul said at the Areopagus were generalized remarks about the people of Athens as a whole. There is no way that every single person in Athens at that time was a practicing idolater and that all worship involving all altars was idolatrous.They were worshipping an “unknown” entity. That automatically make their worship “ignorant.”
Since Paul was describing their worship as idolatrous, and telling them that the true God does not get worshipped that way, then we can be sure that God did not accept their worship.
Note how Luke begins the account of Paul in Athens:
Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. 17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
Acts 17:16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols. 17 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.
Just because he observed that the city was full of idols does not establish that every person was an idolater, all worship was idolatrous, and everything offered on any altar anywhere in Athens was an idolatrous sacrifice. There was a Jewish synagogue there and there were devout people who were God-fearing Gentiles in Athens. To say that those Jews and those devout people practiced idolatry because 17:16 says that the city was full of idols would be a misapplication of that statement. There were also others who were influenced to varying degrees by what the Jews and possibly the devout people said and did.
As was (and is) true in probably any large metropolitan area, there were people all over the spectrum in Athens. There were at least some people in Athens who may have been idolaters to some extent or not even idolaters at all, who may even have been devout to some extent, and yet offered sacrifices that were not idolatrous on that altar, but they were still unbelievers who did not know the true God.
I do not find compelling evidence that requires holding that the sacrifices on the altar to the unknown God had to be idolatrous sacrifices. Because we are limited in the information that we have, we probably will have to leave it there and agree to disagree about this specific point.
[RajeshG]I was re-reading the thread, and I probably shouldn’t have used the word “exactly” when I wrote, “The way I read his sermon, that is exactly what he was telling them.” And I certainly shouldn’t have highlighted it, since that came across as more adamant than I should have been, especially since the particular claim i made was that they weren’t even worshipping God. For the sake of the discussion, we can certainly assume they were directing the worship to God, but we can agree to disagree about whether it was “idolatrous” or not.I do not find compelling evidence that requires holding that the sacrifices on the altar to the unknown God had to be idolatrous sacrifices. Because we are limited in the information that we have, we probably will have to leave it there and agree to disagree about this specific point.
So let’s take the conversation to a more foundational level. My “default position” regarding God and worship has been shifting back and forth as we’ve discussed things, which is one of the reasons I’m trying to watch myself about being “too adamant” about things that we are still in the process of processing. The way I see it, Rajesh, there are four foundational positions one could take, and I am curious as to which one you are currently claiming at the present time.
1, God rejects all worship from unbelievers with no exceptions,
2. God rejects all worship from unbelievers, except for some rare examples, such as a child learning to worship or a Gentile who “fears God.”
3. God accepts all worship from unbelievers, unless there is a specific reason to reject, it such as idolatrous or occult worship.
4. God accepts all worship from unbelievers with no exceptions.
It seems to me that one of the points of this thread is to examine which of these position is valid, but we all start out, from our previous Bible studies, with one of these positions as our initial default position. Which one is yours? (feel free to tweak the wording, like if you feel “rare” shouldn’t be used in position 2, for example.)
[Kevin Miller]1, 3, and 4 are not true. Some variation of #2 is true, but I’m nowhere near the point in studying this subject that I would be able to be confident about how to express fully what God has revealed in Scripture is true about this subject.I was re-reading the thread, and I probably shouldn’t have used the word “exactly” when I wrote, “The way I read his sermon, that is exactly what he was telling them.” And I certainly shouldn’t have highlighted it, since that came across as more adamant than I should have been, especially since the particular claim i made was that they weren’t even worshipping God. For the sake of the discussion, we can certainly assume they were directing the worship to God, but we can agree to disagree about whether it was “idolatrous” or not.
So let’s take the conversation to a more foundational level. My “default position” regarding God and worship has been shifting back and forth as we’ve discussed things, which is one of the reasons I’m trying to watch myself about being “too adamant” about things that we are still in the process of processing. The way I see it, Rajesh, there are four foundational positions one could take, and I am curious as to which one you are currently claiming at the present time.
1, God rejects all worship from unbelievers with no exceptions,
2. God rejects all worship from unbelievers, except for some rare examples, such as a child learning to worship or a Gentile who “fears God.”
3. God accepts all worship from unbelievers, unless there is a specific reason to reject, it such as idolatrous or occult worship.
4. God accepts all worship from unbelievers with no exceptions.
It seems to me that one of the points of this thread is to examine which of these position is valid, but we all start out, from our previous Bible studies, with one of these positions as our initial default position. Which one is yours? (feel free to tweak the wording, like if you feel “rare” shouldn’t be used in position 2, for example.)
[RajeshG]Thanks for responding, since knowing that starting point makes a difference in how I ask questions about particular examples of worship.. When you present any example of an unbeliever worshipping, I could ask either “What is it about this example that makes it acceptable to God?” or I could ask, “What is it about this example that makes God reject it?”1, 3, and 4 are not true. Some variation of #2 is true, but I’m nowhere near the point in studying this subject that I would be able to be confident about how to express fully what God has revealed in Scripture is true about this subject.
Since you say “Some variation of #2 is true,” then in regards to the people on Mars Hill, what is it about their worship that would make it an exception? Why would God accept it from them when God normally wouldn’t accept it from unbelievers?
[Kevin Miller]I do not know for sure. I am not even saying with certainty that God did accept their worship. As always, my approach is why did the Spirit include this information? How does He want us to profit from it?Since you say “Some variation of #2 is true,” then in regards to the people on Mars Hill, what is it about their worship that would make it an exception? Why would God accept it from them when God normally wouldn’t accept it from unbelievers?
Think of it this way. If we did not have those verses, we would have never known that there were any unbelievers in the world who offered sacrifices on an altar to an unknown God. The Spirit wanted us to know that information and think about it. Why?
[RajeshG]I’m not sure we could really know the “Why” without being able to read the mind of God. Some passages are easy to tell whether God meant them for doctrinal information or for correction or for instructions in righteousness. Other passages aren’t so easy.I do not know for sure. I am not even saying with certainty that God did accept their worship. As always, my approach is why did the Spirit include this information? How does He want us to profit from it?
Think of it this way. If we did not have those verses, we would have never known that there were any unbelievers in the world who offered sacrifices on an altar to an unknown God. The Spirit wanted us to know that information and think about it. Why?
My initial guess would be that God wanted us to hear Paul’s sermon, and so God gave us the context, as part of the narrative, behind why Paul was preaching that particular sermon. Since the sermon dealt with God’s rejection of idolatry, and the need to repent and seek the one who created all things, then I figure the context, that of seeing an altar to un unknown god, means that God wanted people to know who the true God is, and to turn from pagan worship and seek the creator God.
[Kevin Miller]Cornelius knew some truth about Jesus and needed to repent and believe yet God heard his prayer and remembered his alms. In the same way, Paul’s demand that the people that he preached to at the Areopagus repent does not in and of itself show that God would not have accepted sacrifices offered ignorantly to an unknown God, provided they were not idolatrous sacrifices. I think that it is significant that Paul mentions earlier that he saw their idols but concerning the unknown God he mentions that he saw an inscribed altar but he does not say anything about an idol. To me, that suggests a contrast that argues against holding that those sacrifices were also offered to an idol.I’m not sure we could really know the “Why” without being able to read the mind of God. Some passages are easy to tell whether God meant them for doctrinal information or for correction or for instructions in righteousness. Other passages aren’t so easy.
My initial guess would be that God wanted us to hear Paul’s sermon, and so God gave us the context, as part of the narrative, behind why Paul was preaching that particular sermon. Since the sermon dealt with God’s rejection of idolatry, and the need to repent and seek the one who created all things, then I figure the context, that of seeing an altar to un unknown god, means that God wanted people to know who the true God is, and to turn from pagan worship and seek the creator God.
[RajeshG]I highly doubt that it suggests as much of a contrast as you think it does. To me, there’s not much difference between a pagan graven altar and a pagan graven idol when both are being worshipped in the same pagan way. There’s no indication that the worship itself that was directed to each of their gods. known or unknown, was different in any significant way from each other. However, I also recognize that you previously said, “I am not even saying with certainty that God did accept their worship,” so I’m not going to accuse you of being overly adamant.Cornelius knew some truth about Jesus and needed to repent and believe yet God heard his prayer and remembered his alms. In the same way, Paul’s demand that the people that he preached to at the Areopagus repent does not in and of itself show that God would not have accepted sacrifices offered ignorantly to an unknown God, provided they were not idolatrous sacrifices. I think that it is significant that Paul mentions earlier that he saw their idols but concerning the unknown God he mentions that he saw an inscribed altar but he does not say anything about an idol. To me, that suggests a contrast that argues against holding that those sacrifices were also offered to an idol.
You happened to make that statement after I had asked you why God would even accept worship from them, and you said, “I do not know for sure.” Honestly, I don’t know either. If your default position is number 2 of the 4 I listed, then you would at least have to have some tentative reason why you think it would be acceptable, even without an idol being present. Number 2 was “God rejects all worship from unbelievers, except for some rare examples.” We’ve covered some reasons why Samuel’s worship would be accepted and why Cornelius’ worship would be accepted, but I don’t think you even have a reason why the Mars Hill worship would be accepted, especially since you admitted that you don’t know a reason.
[Kevin Miller]I have provided several contextual reasons. Maybe you should go back and reconsider them. You have not found them convincing and you may never, but I have provided some reasons.I highly doubt that it suggests as much of a contrast as you think it does. To me, there’s not much difference between a pagan graven altar and a pagan graven idol when both are being worshipped in the same pagan way. There’s no indication that the worship itself that was directed to each of their gods. known or unknown, was different in any significant way from each other. However, I also recognize that you previously said, “I am not even saying with certainty that God did accept their worship,” so I’m not going to accuse you of being overly adamant.
You happened to make that statement after I had asked you why God would even accept worship from them, and you said, “I do not know for sure.” Honestly, I don’t know either. If your default position is number 2 of the 4 I listed, then you would at least have to have some tentative reason why you think it would be acceptable, even without an idol being present. Number 2 was “God rejects all worship from unbelievers, except for some rare examples.” We’ve covered some reasons why Samuel’s worship would be accepted and why Cornelius’ worship would be accepted, but I don’t think you even have a reason why the Mars Hill worship would be accepted, especially since you admitted that you don’t know a reason.
I did say, “I do not know for sure.” I did not say, “I have no idea.” There is a big difference.
Paul could have openly denounced that worship as false worship. Instead, he chose to say that they were worshiping ignorantly. To me, that difference matters.
Paul would not have said that idolatrous worship is worshiping ignorantly because he knew that idolaters suppress the truth in unrighteousness—they are not ignorant.
[RajeshG]So are those last two sentences the reasons you think God accepted their worship, or were there other reasons? Maybe you provided some earlier in the thread, but if you did, they did strike me as reasons for acceptance. Are you saying that if the Mars Hill worship was directed to God but was not idolatrous, it would automatically have been accepted? Why? That’s what I don’t understand. You haven’t really given a reason why it would be accepted. You’ve only made the point that it constitutes worship.I have provided several contextual reasons. Maybe you should go back and reconsider them. You have not found them convincing and you may never, but I have provided some reasons.
I did say, “I do not know for sure.” I did not say, “I have no idea.” There is a big difference.
Paul could have openly denounced that worship as false worship. Instead, he chose to say that they were worshiping ignorantly. To me, that difference matters.
Paul would not have said that idolatrous worship is worshiping ignorantly because he knew that idolaters suppress the truth in unrighteousness—they are not ignorant.
[Kevin Miller]Actually, the passage does not say anything about any worship actually taking place on Mars Hill so I would not call it, “Mars Hill worship.” We do not know where that altar to the unknown God was located.So are those last two sentences the reasons you think God accepted their worship, or were there other reasons? Maybe you provided some earlier in the thread, but if you did, they did strike me as reasons for acceptance. Are you saying that if the Mars Hill worship was directed to God but was not idolatrous, it would automatically have been accepted? Why? That’s what I don’t understand. You haven’t really given a reason why it would be accepted. You’ve only made the point that it constitutes worship.
Concerning the worship on that altar, the considerations that I have presented lead me to leave open the possibility that God did accept that worship on that altar to some extent. Had that worship clearly been false worship or worship in vain, I think that Paul would have said so.
Ultimately, we cannot be certain that God accepted it, but I do not find anything in the passage that requires that we hold that He did not because that worship had to be idolatrous worship of the unknown God.
[RajeshG]I was using the term to reference “the worship Paul referred to while speaking on Mars Hill.” I didn’t realize that would be hard for you to understand.Actually, the passage does not say anything about any worship actually taking place on Mars Hill so I would not call it, “Mars Hill worship.” We do not know where that altar to the unknown God was located.
Concerning the worship on that altar, the considerations that I have presented lead me to leave open the possibility that God did accept that worship on that altar to some extent. Had that worship clearly been false worship or worship in vain, I think that Paul would have said so.What considerations did you present? You keep saying you’ve presented them, but you haven’t given any reasons why it would be acceptable. False worship would be worship to a false god. I’ve already conceded that for the sake of the discussion, we will consider worship on the altar as worship to the true God, but why would such worship to the true God to be acceptable in the midst of all the surrounding false worship? What makes it acceptable? Can you give any reasons like we provided for Samuel or Cornelius? When Naaman started worshipping God, he told Elijah in 2 Kings 5:17, “your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord.” If Namaan had decided to worship the Lord in addition to false gods, he would not be making acceptable worship. What make you think the people worshipping the “unknown god” could be making acceptable worship to God while also worshipping their false gods at the same time?
[Kevin Miller]Ok.I was using the term to reference “the worship Paul referred to while speaking on Mars Hill.” I didn’t realize that would be hard for you to understand.
In connection with what he said in his message on Mars Hill, neither the Epicurean nor the Stoic philosophers who took Paul and brought him to the Areopagus (Acts 17:18-19) were idolaters. Therefore, even though they brought him to that location and prompted his message (Acts 17:19-20), what he said in his message against idolatry did not pertain directly to them. Similarly, it is entirely possible, and I believe was the case, that his remarks against idolatry in that message did not pertain directly to what those who sacrificed on the altar to the unknown God did on that altar.
[Kevin Miller]Actually, I was thinking of bringing up the passage about Naaman shortly! Naaman did say that he would not offer any sacrifices to another god, but he also said this:I was using the term to reference “the worship Paul referred to while speaking on Mars Hill.” I didn’t realize that would be hard for you to understand.
What considerations did you present? You keep saying you’ve presented them, but you haven’t given any reasons why it would be acceptable. False worship would be worship to a false god. I’ve already conceded that for the sake of the discussion, we will consider worship on the altar as worship to the true God, but why would such worship to the true God to be acceptable in the midst of all the surrounding false worship? What makes it acceptable? Can you give any reasons like we provided for Samuel or Cornelius? When Naaman started worshipping God, he told Elijah in 2 Kings 5:17, “your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord.” If Namaan had decided to worship the Lord in addition to false gods, he would not be making acceptable worship. What make you think the people worshipping the “unknown god” could be making acceptable worship to God while also worshipping their false gods at the same time?
2 Kings 5:18 In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.
Naaman was intending to worship the LORD and offer some worship to Rimmon as well.
Since I’m still trying to figure out which default position I most agree with, I think it’s wise to look at the words of Jesus in John 4:23-24.
“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
[RajeshG]How do you figure Namaan was intending to offer worship to Rimmon? He was asking for forgiveness for simply being the person his master would hold onto while his master worshipped.Actually, I was thinking of bringing up the passage about Naaman shortly! Naaman did say that he would not offer any sacrifices to another god, but he also said this:
2 Kings 5:18 In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.
Naaman was intending to worship the LORD and offer some worship to Rimmon as well.
[Kevin Miller]Naaman twice said that he would bow himself when his master would constrain him to do so. Bowing down to an idol is worshiping an idol.How do you figure Namaan was intending to offer worship to Rimmon? He was asking for forgiveness for simply being the person his master would hold onto while his master worshipped.
[Kevin Miller]Absolutely, what Jesus said pertains directly; the challenge is to understand how and to what extent what He said to the Samaritan woman applied to people who worshiped prior to the time of His coming, His making those statements, etc.Since I’m still trying to figure out which default position I most agree with, I think it’s wise to look at the words of Jesus in John 4:23-24.
“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
Naaman truly came to know the Lord and purposed not to offer sacrifices to any other god other than the Lord:
2 Kings 5:17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules’ burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD.
We know that he was a believer and that he intended to worship the true God. He, however, was not a priest himself. As someone who was not a priest of the Lord, would any sacrifices that he would have offered on the altar that he presumably intended to make have been accepted by God?
Would Naaman immediately (or at some later point) even have known what God’s requirements were for what sacrifices could be offered and for how sacrifices had to be prepared and offered, etc? If not, even though he was a true believer and would have been directing his worship to the true God, would his worship have been accepted by God?
I don’t think enough attention is being paid to the general tenor of Acts 17. It says that Paul’s spirit was provoked within him when he sees the city full of idols. He then goes on to preach a sermon which includes a call to repentance because God has appointed a Man to judge two world. My own view is that, contextually, Paul had righteous anger over their syncretism and idolatry and that was the background of the whole sermon. There is nothing there about God accepting worship from unbelievers. It may be possible to make that argument from other passages but I personally don’t believe Acts 17 supports it. According to Romans 1 God is not “unknown”. He is known through general revelation and that knowledge is suppressed in favor of idolatry. That is what Paul is addressing.
[josh p]If you look more closely at the flow of thought in Acts 17, his spirit being provoked within him is not the immediate antecedent of the sermon. In other words, Paul did not decide after having his spirit provoked that he should go to Mars Hill and preach against what he had seen.Hesitant to comment because I don’t want to derail a fruitful discussion but I will comment briefly.
I don’t think enough attention is being paid to the general tenor of Acts 17. It says that Paul’s spirit was provoked within him when he sees the city full of idols. He then goes on to preach a sermon which includes a call to repentance because God has appointed a Man to judge two world. My own view is that, contextually, Paul had righteous anger over their syncretism and idolatry and that was the background of the whole sermon. There is nothing there about God accepting worship from unbelievers. It may be possible to make that argument from other passages but I personally don’t believe Acts 17 supports it. According to Romans 1 God is not “unknown”. He is known through general revelation and that knowledge is suppressed in favor of idolatry. That is what Paul is addressing.
Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. 17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
Rather, as a result of having his spirit provoked, Paul was doing what verse 17 says: he disputed with various persons on a daily basis.
Acts 17:18-21, however, is the immediate antecedent and basis of his sermon:
Acts 17:18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. 19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? 20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. 21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
Paul’s sermon was in response to his having been brought by certain philosophers to Mars Hill. Those philosophers were not idolaters and they did not have anything to do with promoting the idolatry in Athens. They brought him to the Areopagus so that they could get more information about his prior preaching to them “Jesus and the resurrection.” In the flow of thought of the passage, Paul’s message there was his response to philosophers who wanted to know what the meaning was of what he had previously preached to them about Jesus and the resurrection.
Again, it is vital to note that Paul’s message was an explanation of the meaning of what he had previously preached to them!
Paul did use the occasion to address the idolatry of the Athenians but that was not the sum total of what his message was based on; he was challenging those philosophers to repent just as much as he was challenging the idolaters in Athens to repent.
It is not accurate to say, “Their syncretism and idolatry … was the background of the whole sermon.” The philosophers who brought him to the Areopagus were neither syncretistic nor idolaters. Yes, the idolatry of Athens was an important part of the background of the sermon, but it was not primarily what prompted his message.
[RajeshG]The passage in 2 Kings 5 does not specifically mention an idol in the house of Rimmon. Since you were clear in pointing out that the passage about the altar to the unknown god did not mention an idol, I figure the same point would be applicable here.Naaman twice said that he would bow himself when his master would constrain him to do so. Bowing down to an idol is worshiping an idol.
[RajeshG]You asked three separate questions in this thread, and they’re good questions. Before I try my hand at answering them, and having you tell me I’m mistaken, I thought I would ask you to answer them first with your own perspective. Do you think any of his sacrifices would have been acceptable to God?Naaman truly came to know the Lord and purposed not to offer sacrifices to any other god other than the Lord:
2 Kings 5:17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules’ burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD.
We know that he was a believer and that he intended to worship the true God. He, however, was not a priest himself. As someone who was not a priest of the Lord, would any sacrifices that he would have offered on the altar that he presumably intended to make have been accepted by God?
Would Naaman immediately (or at some later point) even have known what God’s requirements were for what sacrifices could be offered and for how sacrifices had to be prepared and offered, etc? If not, even though he was a true believer and would have been directing his worship to the true God, would his worship have been accepted by God?
Discussion