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]How can you say the philosophers were not idolaters? Where do you get that from the passage? Does the passage describe them as some sort of Athenian atheists? Why was the preaching of “Jesus and the resurrection” so intriguing to them? The passage actually tells us why. It was because Paul “seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods.” Paul was telling them about a “strange god” who was so different from the gods they were familiar with, so different that this God could rise from the dead. The passage doesn’t indicate at all that these philosophers disbelieved the false familiar gods or shunned idolatry. Since Paul’s message to the philosophers “about Jesus and the resurrection” was specifically condemning idolatry, we can be quite sure that these philosophers were themselves worshipping the familiar gods with idolatry.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.
[josh p]I appreciate your input. It’s nice to have someone else’s perspective on the topic, apart from just me and Rajesh.Hesitant to comment because I don’t want to derail a fruitful discussion but I will comment briefly.
[RajeshG]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.
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.
I still believe you are over-compartmentalizing the passage. Paul was provoked by the idolatry there. It’s inconsequential that he went and disputed. He did that everywhere he went. The fact that we know is that the city was characteristically idolatrous and that he directly addressed it in his sermon.
Can I ask a more general theological question? Are atheists idolatrous? How about an agnostic? Personally I can’t think of a more characteristically agnostic statement than “to an unknown God.” Romans 1 charges all people with idolatry. This would include atheists. I do believe however that the Athenians and sophists were involved in direct idolatry. History bears that out as well.
[josh p]Atheists deny that any god exists. No atheist in Athens would have been offering sacrifices on altar to an unknown god because they would not have believed that any such god existed.I still believe you are over-compartmentalizing the passage. Paul was provoked by the idolatry there. It’s inconsequential that he went and disputed. He did that everywhere he went. The fact that we know is that the city was characteristically idolatrous and that he directly addressed it in his sermon.
Can I ask a more general theological question? Are atheists idolatrous? How about an agnostic? Personally I can’t think of a more characteristically agnostic statement than “to an unknown God.” Romans 1 charges all people with idolatry. This would include atheists. I do believe however that the Athenians and sophists were involved in direct idolatry. History bears that out as well.
If you have historical evidence that shows specifically that the Epicureans or the Stoics or both in Athens in the first century AD were involved in direct idolatry, I would like to see it.
[josh p]I disagree. I am not “over-compartmentalizing the passage …” I am treating what the passage actually says specifically took place in how Paul was brought to the Areopagus and what was said to him immediately prior to his preaching his sermon there.I still believe you are over-compartmentalizing the passage. Paul was provoked by the idolatry there. It’s inconsequential that he went and disputed. He did that everywhere he went. The fact that we know is that the city was characteristically idolatrous and that he directly addressed it in his sermon.
[Kevin Miller]It’s not necessary for the passage to mention that an idol was in that house of a false god for us to know that he would be engaging in idolatrous worship of a false god.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.
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. 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.
In verse 17, Naaman emphatically speaks of not serving any other gods except the Lord. Yet, in verse 18, he speaks of doing something in the house of a false god that would require that the Lord would pardon him for what he would do. His using a standard Hebrew verb for worship twice to speak of his sinful activity leaves no question that in this passage he is speaking that he would be engaging in idolatrous worship of a false god.
What’s more, the verb rendered “worship” for what his master would do is the same verb rendered as “bow down” twice for Naaman.
[Kevin Miller]No, the passage does not describe them as some sort of Athenian atheists. Historical information about the Epicureans informs us that they were atheists and about the Stoics that they were pantheists. I have not found any information in my searches about these two groups that says that they practiced any forms of idolatry.How can you say the philosophers were not idolaters? Where do you get that from the passage? Does the passage describe them as some sort of Athenian atheists? Why was the preaching of “Jesus and the resurrection” so intriguing to them? The passage actually tells us why. It was because Paul “seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods.” Paul was telling them about a “strange god” who was so different from the gods they were familiar with, so different that this God could rise from the dead. The passage doesn’t indicate at all that these philosophers disbelieved the false familiar gods or shunned idolatry. Since Paul’s message to the philosophers “about Jesus and the resurrection” was specifically condemning idolatry, we can be quite sure that these philosophers were themselves worshipping the familiar gods with idolatry.
There is no necessity that they would have to be worshipers of those false gods in order for them to find the preaching of “Jesus and the resurrection” as the speaking about strange gods. Being fully acquainted intellectually with all the deities worshiped in Athens without their worshiping any of them themselves would lead them just as much to find Paul’s preaching to be strange in the same manner.
I find no basis in the passage to support holding that these atheistic/pantheistic philosophers “were themselves worshiping the familiar gods with idolatry.” We will probably have to leave it there and agree to disagree on this point.
[Kevin Miller]These are new questions that had never occurred to me in the past concerning his future worship. I am going to hold off on my answering these questions at this time because I have not studied them carefully myself before.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?
[RajeshG]I know. I was just kidding around with you. It’s entirely logical that there would be an idol in the house of Rimmon. Any time people reject the knowledge of the true God and turn to false gods (breaking the first commandment), they invariably break the second commandment as well, making unto themselves images. The breaking of those two commands pretty much goes hand in hand. This is true whether we are talking about people in Syria or people in Athens. Even if people began to worship multiple gods without idolatry, and they decided to include the true God in their pantheon, their worship of the true God would be completely unacceptable due to the breaking of the first commandment.It’s not necessary for the passage to mention that an idol was in that house of a false god for us to know that he would be engaging in idolatrous worship of a false god.
[RajeshG]If you need extra time to study Naaman, that’s fine. I’ve already mentioned my perspective, so I’ll hold off on talking more about it until you get a general idea of your own.These are new questions that had never occurred to me in the past concerning his future worship. I am going to hold off on my answering these questions at this time because I have not studied them carefully myself before.
[RajeshG] Historical information about the Epicureans informs us that they were atheistsFrom what I’ve read, the Epicureans didn’t deny the existence of gods, so they weren’t atheists. They just denied that gods practiced any involvement or interference in the world.
[Kevin Miller]Hmm. I was going to let you have it for making that comment and had to work hard to control myself not to do so …I know. I was just kidding around with you. It’s entirely logical that there would be an idol in the house of Rimmon. Any time people reject the knowledge of the true God and turn to false gods (breaking the first commandment), they invariably break the second commandment as well, making unto themselves images. The breaking of those two commands pretty much goes hand in hand. This is true whether we are talking about people in Syria or people in Athens. Even if people began to worship multiple gods without idolatry, and they decided to include the true God in their pantheon, their worship of the true God would be completely unacceptable due to the breaking of the first commandment.
Whether your last sentence in this comment is true remains to be seen. There’s at least one passage that does not support that view, but I’m holding off on discussing that passage for now.
[RajeshG]Hmmm. I find the existence of such a passage rather hard to believe. I know you don’t want to discuss the passage yet, but is it one in which God actually affirms the sharing of His worship, or is it just silent regarding condemnation, so you somehow think God is okay with sharing worship?Whether your last sentence in this comment is true remains to be seen. There’s at least one passage that does not support that view, but I’m holding off on discussing that passage for now.
[Kevin Miller]Here is some of what I found about both groups:From what I’ve read, the Epicureans didn’t deny the existence of gods, so they weren’t atheists. They just denied that gods practiced any involvement or interference in the world.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/stoics.html
2. Metaphysics and Religion:
The main principles of Stoicism were promulgated by Zeno and Cleanthes, and Chrysippus formulated them into a systematic doctrine which became a standard of orthodoxy for the school, and which permitted but little freedom of speculation for its subsequent teachers. Whatever may have been the Semitic affinities of mind of Zeno and his followers, they derived the formal principles of their system from Greek antecedents. The ethical precept, “Follow Nature,” they learnt from the Socratic school of Antisthenes, the Cynics. But they followed the earlier philosopher Heraclitus in defining the law of Nature as reason (logos), which was at once the principle of intelligence in man, and the divine reason immanent in the world. This doctrine they again combined with the prevalent Greek hylozoism, and therefore their metaphysics inclined to be a materialistic pantheism. On the one side, Nature is the organization of material atoms by the operation of its own uniform and necessary laws. On the other side, it is a living, rational being, subduing all its parts to work out a rational purpose inherent in the whole. As such it may be called Providence or God.
While the Stoics rejected the forms and rites of popular religion, they defended belief in God and inculcated piety and reverence toward Him. Their pantheism provided a basis for Greek polytheism also alongside of their monism, for where all the world is God, each part of it is divine, and may be worshipped. Another consequence of their pantheism was their attitude to evil, which they held to be only apparently or relatively evil, but really good in the harmony of the whole. Therefore they bore evil with courage and cheerfulness, because they believed that “all things worked together for good” absolutely.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/epicureans/
Epicureans [N]
followers of Epicurus (who died at Athens B.C. 270), or adherents of the Epicurean philosophy ( Acts 17:18 ). This philosophy was a system of atheism, and taught men to seek as their highest aim a pleasant and smooth life. They have been called the “Sadducees” of Greek paganism. They, with the Stoics, ridiculed the teaching of Paul ( Acts 17:18 ). They appear to have been greatly esteemed at Athens.
\10. Epicurean Gods:
“For the nature of the gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality with supreme repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns; since exempt from every pain, exempt from all dangers, strong in its own resources, not wanting aught of us, it is neither gained by favors nor moved by anger” (Lucretius). All religion is banned, though the gods are retained. Epicurus’ failure to carry the logic of his system to the denial of the gods lies deeper than his theory of ideas.
Apparently, they Epicureans were atheists in some sense and banned all religion, but they still retained the gods (whatever that means) in some manner.
I still have not seen anything that even remotely suggests that either group practiced any idolatry themselves.
[Kevin Miller]The passage is explicit in what it does say, but I expect that there will be extensive discussion when we get to it. Since this is a passage that I have only recently understood for its ramification to this question, I’m wanting to explore the question on a broader basis first before digging into what this key passage says.Hmmm. I find the existence of such a passage rather hard to believe. I know you don’t want to discuss the passage yet, but is it one in which God actually affirms the sharing of His worship, or is it just silent regarding condemnation, so you somehow think God is okay with sharing worship?
[RajeshG]According to the paragraphs you just posted about the Stoics, they believed that “all the world is God, each part of it is divine, and may be worshipped.” So for them, the world itself, basically Nature, was their god, and everything found in nature was thus an idol to them and could be worshipped. Romans 1:25 seems to describe them quite well. “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.” THAT is idolatry.I still have not seen anything that even remotely suggests that either group practiced any idolatry themselves.
[Kevin Miller]When I spoke of them not practicing any idolatry themselves, I was talking specifically of them bowing down to idols or offering sacrifices on an altar to an unknown God. Somehow, I think that you would have known that’s what I was getting at, but anyway …According to the paragraphs you just posted about the Stoics, they believed that “all the world is God, each part of it is divine, and may be worshipped.” So for them, the world itself, basically Nature, was their god, and everything found in nature was thus an idol to them and could be worshipped. Romans 1:25 seems to describe them quite well. “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.” THAT is idolatry.
Did you somehow not notice what else that source said about the Stoics: “While the Stoics rejected the forms and rites of popular religion, they defended belief in God and inculcated piety and reverence toward Him”?This statement establishes that they would not have been the ones practicing the idolatry that filled Athens that Paul saw.
The Bible also says that covetousness is idolatry, but being covetous does not in any way necessitate our understanding that a covetous person also offers sacrifices on altars to physical idols or on an altar to an unknown God.
Keeping the discussion pertinent to what is in the text of Acts 17, there is no evidence that either the Epicureans or the Stoics would have been the ones who were worshiping physical idols such as Paul saw that filled the city and such as provoked his spirit. Paul’s spirit was not provoked because all the city of Athens was covetous and therefore idolatrous.
There is no evidence that Paul’s message on Mars Hill was only directed to people who idolatrously directed worshiped to physical idols, etc. As I explained before carefully, the immediate antecedent of his message was not the idolatry of Athens—it was the prompting that he received from philosophers about whom we have no evidence that they were practicing the physical idolatry that Paul saw in Athens.
[RajeshG]I can only know what you are getting at by reading your exact words. On page three, you said, “I have not found any information in my searches about these two groups that says that they practiced any forms of idolatry.” When I read that, I didn’t think, “Oh, he must be talking specifically about a certain form of idolatry.” I thought you were meaning “any forms of idolatry” as your wording clearly stated.When I spoke of them not practicing any idolatry themselves, I was talking specifically of them bowing down to idols or offering sacrifices on an altar to an unknown God. Somehow, I think that you would have known that’s what I was getting at, but anyway …
Did you somehow not notice what else that source said about the Stoics: “While the Stoics rejected the forms and rites of popular religion, they defended belief in God and inculcated piety and reverence toward Him”?This statement establishes that they would not have been the ones practicing the idolatry that filled Athens that Paul saw.Ah, but did they defend belief in the all-powerful creator God, or did they defend belief in a god who was part of the divine natural world. It certainly seems they at least had “a form” of idolatry.
Keeping the discussion pertinent to what is in the text of Acts 17, there is no evidence that either the Epicureans or the Stoics would have been the ones who were worshiping physical idols such as Paul saw that filled the city and such as provoked his spirit.Keeping the discussion to the text, we have no indication from the text itself that the two groups weren’t worshipping physical idols. We don’t even know that there wasn’t a physical idol at the altar to the unknown god. You even admitted on page two, “Yes, you are right the Bible does not say that there wasn’t an idol.” The Bible also doesn’t differentiate between what groups were worshipping at one altar as opposed to another altar in the location where all the altars were grouped together. Since the text doesn’t say, then we are both drawing implications rather than being able to rely on specific wording. You seem to be getting your implications from Bible dictionaries or encyclopedias. I’m getting my implications from the message Paul preached to the entire group of listeners. The entire group was being chastised by Paul for idolatry. If you have a location where, say, five gods are being worshipped at altars, then it doesn’t matter of only four altars have an actual idol next to them. The entire place is a place of idolatry.
[Kevin Miller]Do you know of any Bible passage that even speaks of any people having multiple altars to different idols or to different objects of worship in one place “where all the altars were grouped together”? I do not know of any such passage so your asserting that even as a possibility does not seem to be based on anything that the Bible says anywhere.Keeping the discussion to the text, we have no indication from the text itself that the two groups weren’t worshipping physical idols. We don’t even know that there wasn’t a physical idol at the altar to the unknown god. You even admitted on page two, “Yes, you are right the Bible does not say that there wasn’t an idol.” The Bible also doesn’t differentiate between what groups were worshipping at one altar as opposed to another altar in the location where all the altars were grouped together. Since the text doesn’t say, then we are both drawing implications rather than being able to rely on specific wording. You seem to be getting your implications from Bible dictionaries or encyclopedias. I’m getting my implications from the message Paul preached to the entire group of listeners. The entire group was being chastised by Paul for idolatry. If you have a location where, say, five gods are being worshipped at altars, then it doesn’t matter of only four altars have an actual idol next to them. The entire place is a place of idolatry.
[RajeshG]By saying “grouped together,” I didn’t mean grouped together all in the same temple. I was referring to altars in temples that were grouped together all in the same city, such as ATHENS. When Paul preached against the idolatry in Athens, he wasn’t singling out any one temple altar as idolatrous. He was talking about the idolatry throughout the city and making a generalized statement about the city as a whole. He also wasn’t singling out any one temple as non-idolatrous. If you wish to claim that worship at the altar to the unknown god was free of any connection to idolatry, you’d have to show me some Scriptural evidence that the worshippers there were monotheistic and didn’t ever worship at any other temple where there were idols.Do you know of any Bible passage that even speaks of any people having multiple altars to different idols or to different objects of worship in one place “where all the altars were grouped together”? I do not know of any such passage so your asserting that even as a possibility does not seem to be based on anything that the Bible says anywhere.
Mark 5:5-6 says “And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,”
Does this passage indicate that God accepts worship from demon possessed people?
[Kevin Miller]No, the original readers of Acts to whom Luke wrote would have known that neither the Epicureans nor the Stoics worshiped any of the idols in Athens. We know what they knew because we have historical information to prove that view. I do not have to prove that they were monotheistic because the Epicureans banned all religions and the Stoics “rejected the forms and rites of popular religion” of the people around them.By saying “grouped together,” I didn’t mean grouped together all in the same temple. I was referring to altars in temples that were grouped together all in the same city, such as ATHENS. When Paul preached against the idolatry in Athens, he wasn’t singling out any one temple altar as idolatrous. He was talking about the idolatry throughout the city and making a generalized statement about the city as a whole. He also wasn’t singling out any one temple as non-idolatrous. If you wish to claim that worship at the altar to the unknown god was free of any connection to idolatry, you’d have to show me some Scriptural evidence that the worshippers there were monotheistic and didn’t ever worship at any other temple where there were idols.
Even if they had ever worshiped at any other temple where there were idols, that would not prove anything about these philosophers worshiping idolatrously on the altar to the unknown God. But, as is the case, we do not even have any evidence that either group was ever among those who worshiped at that altar or any other place of worship.
You are assuming that they were syncretistic without any evidence to prove it.
Furthermore, a direct parallel shows further why your assumption is not true. In Acts 2, Peter preached to Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem from many other countries (Acts 2:9-11). Peter charged all of his hearers in this way:
Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
We can be absolutely certain that many (if not even the vast majority) of the people who were present to whom Peter yet uttered these words had zero involvement in the crucifying of Jesus. Similarly, there is zero evidence in Acts 17 that what Paul preached on Mars Hill about engaging in physical idolatry to physical idols applied to those philosophers.
[Kevin Miller]It is interesting to me to consider how God seems to be leading our minds to be thinking along some of the same lines.Mark 5:5-6 says “And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,”
Does this passage indicate that God accepts worship from demon possessed people?
This passage speaks of an entirely different category than all the other passages that we have looked at (and others that we have not yet considered) because it concerns human activities and (possible) divine responses involving worship in the direct and visible presence of Deity.
As such, it would be highly problematic to attempt to liken whatever may have transpired on this occasion with what has taken place (and takes place) in worship settings that do not involve the direct and visible presence of Deity.
I was planning to treat this kind of passage later in this discussion. If you are ok with holding off on talking about this now, that would be good. If not, I can make some additional preliminary responses.
[RajeshG]Do you think Paul normally preached messages that didn’t apply to his listeners? That’s what you’re saying happened here with the Epicureans and Stoics. They brought Paul to the Areopagus to speak, and Paul specifically preached against idolatry even though the ones asking him to speak were not, as you claim, idolaters.No, the original readers of Acts to whom Luke wrote would have known that neither the Epicureans nor the Stoics worshiped any of the idols in Athens. We know what they knew because we have historical information to prove that view. I do not have to prove that they were monotheistic because the Epicureans banned all religions and the Stoics “rejected the forms and rites of popular religion” of the people around them.
Even if they had ever worshiped at any other temple where there were idols, that would not prove anything about these philosophers worshiping idolatrously on the altar to the unknown God. But, as is the case, we do not even have any evidence that either group was ever among those who worshiped at that altar or any other place of worship.
Furthermore, a direct parallel shows further why your assumption is not true. In Acts 2, Peter preached to Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem from many other countries (Acts 2:9-11). Peter charged all of his hearers in this way:I don’t think this analogy makes the point you are trying to make. Both passages are messages condemning rejection of God and exhorting people to repent. In Acts 17, the creator God is described and rejection of this God is seen in idolatry and thus the listeners need to repent. In Acts 2, Jesus is shown as “approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs. (v 22) Rejection of God is shown by Jesus’ crucifixion, and the listeners to this message need to repent. Acts 2;36-38 says,Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
We can be absolutely certain that many (if not even the vast majority) of the people who were present to whom Peter yet uttered these words had zero involvement in the crucifying of Jesus. Similarly, there is zero evidence in Acts 17 that what Paul preached on Mars Hill about engaging in physical idolatry to physical idols applied to those philosophers.
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Paul was clearly NOT saying that only those “present at the crucifixion with personal involvement” were responsible for the crucifixion. Paul is saying that “all Israel” is responsible. Thousands of “God-fearing Jews from every nation” were “cut to the heart” and knew they needed to repent. This passage doesn’t absolve anyone of responsibility due to lack of “personal involvement.” In the same way, the message of Acts 17 doesn’t absolve anyone of responsibility for rejecting God with idolatry. If you are not worshipping God as someone who “does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands,” then you need to repent. Even if you’ve “rejected the forms and rites of popular religion,” you are still worshipping something other than God and that is idolatry.
[RajeshG]I’m not sure how much discussion we are actually doing if you keep holding off on discussing things. Personally, I can’t see how the “direct presence” of God makes a difference in whether God accepts or rejects worship. The worship itself is either accepted or not, isn’t it?It is interesting to me to consider how God seems to be leading our minds to be thinking along some of the same lines.
This passage speaks of an entirely different category than all the other passages that we have looked at (and others that we have not yet considered) because it concerns human activities and (possible) divine responses involving worship in the direct and visible presence of Deity.
As such, it would be highly problematic to attempt to liken whatever may have transpired on this occasion with what has taken place (and takes place) in worship settings that do not involve the direct and visible presence of Deity.
I was planning to treat this kind of passage later in this discussion. If you are ok with holding off on talking about this now, that would be good. If not, I can make some additional preliminary responses.
Maybe we need to cover what is meant by “accept.”
In the fifth post of this thread, Mark Smith asked you what you meant by “accept.” All you did was post some verses in which God does some “accepting,” but those verses didn’t define the concept itself. They just say acceptance happened. Doesn’t the concept of acceptance require a “standard.” If I ask you if I can borrow a dollar, and you give me a dollar coin, should that dollar be acceptable to me? If I need it for a vending machine that doesn’t take dollar coins, then it wouldn’t be acceptable. If you give me a dollar bill that is torn or damaged, it still wouldn’t be acceptable. If I tell you “I NEED AN ACCEPTABLE DOLLAR,” without telling you the standard, you would have no way of knowing what I mean by acceptable.
Would it be fair to say that “acceptable” in regards to worship would be the same as saying “pleasing to God.”? If so, we would still need to define what is meant by “pleasing to God.” Being pleasing to God still requires the “standard” to be described.
[Kevin Miller]I wonder if you have lost sight of what in Acts 17 is really pertinent to this discussion. It is irrelevant whether the Epicureans or the Stoics or both had to be idolatrous in some way or another. The point is that neither of those groups were the ones worshiping on an altar to an unknown God. For the purposes of this discussion, I do not find any evidence that requires holding that what Paul preached in his message against idolatry involving physical objects had to also apply to what whoever it was that worshiped on that altar to the unknown God was doing on that altar.Do you think Paul normally preached messages that didn’t apply to his listeners? That’s what you’re saying happened here with the Epicureans and Stoics. They brought Paul to the Areopagus to speak, and Paul specifically preached against idolatry even though the ones asking him to speak were not, as you claim, idolaters.
I don’t think this analogy makes the point you are trying to make. Both passages are messages condemning rejection of God and exhorting people to repent. In Acts 17, the creator God is described and rejection of this God is seen in idolatry and thus the listeners need to repent. In Acts 2, Jesus is shown as “approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs. (v 22) Rejection of God is shown by Jesus’ crucifixion, and the listeners to this message need to repent. Acts 2;36-38 says,
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Paul was clearly NOT saying that only those “present at the crucifixion with personal involvement” were responsible for the crucifixion. Paul is saying that “all Israel” is responsible. Thousands of “God-fearing Jews from every nation” were “cut to the heart” and knew they needed to repent. This passage doesn’t absolve anyone of responsibility due to lack of “personal involvement.” In the same way, the message of Acts 17 doesn’t absolve anyone of responsibility for rejecting God with idolatry. If you are not worshipping God as someone who “does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands,” then you need to repent. Even if you’ve “rejected the forms and rites of popular religion,” you are still worshipping something other than God and that is idolatry.
I think that there will not be any profit in any further discussion of Acts 17.
[Kevin Miller]In His wisdom, the Spirit has chosen not to give us definitions of or exhaustive listings of what is acceptable or pleasing to God in worship. We have to work with what He has chosen to give us, which is a whole Bible full of different types of material.I’m not sure how much discussion we are actually doing if you keep holding off on discussing things. Personally, I can’t see how the “direct presence” of God makes a difference in whether God accepts or rejects worship. The worship itself is either accepted or not, isn’t it?
Maybe we need to cover what is meant by “accept.”
In the fifth post of this thread, Mark Smith asked you what you meant by “accept.” All you did was post some verses in which God does some “accepting,” but those verses didn’t define the concept itself. They just say acceptance happened. Doesn’t the concept of acceptance require a “standard.” If I ask you if I can borrow a dollar, and you give me a dollar coin, should that dollar be acceptable to me? If I need it for a vending machine that doesn’t take dollar coins, then it wouldn’t be acceptable. If you give me a dollar bill that is torn or damaged, it still wouldn’t be acceptable. If I tell you “I NEED AN ACCEPTABLE DOLLAR,” without telling you the standard, you would have no way of knowing what I mean by acceptable.
Would it be fair to say that “acceptable” in regards to worship would be the same as saying “pleasing to God.”? If so, we would still need to define what is meant by “pleasing to God.” Being pleasing to God still requires the “standard” to be described.
Discussing how we determine whether worship in any given occasion was accepted or not is a key part of this discussion, as so many of the comments so far have shown.
“Acceptable” and “pleasing to God” are both ways that God has communicated His acceptance of worship at various times. Establishing definitions of both and discussing how they interrelate is not what I believe would be profitable. Rather, we should continue to examine passages to see what they reveal about divine acceptance or rejection of worship and how they do so.
[RajeshG]You highlight that as if it is an undisputed fact that can’t be challenged. How in the world do you know this. The two groups invited Paul to speak, and what were the first sentences that the Holy spirit wanted us to know from the message? “Men of Athens (which included the two groups, of course), I perceive that in every way you (including the two groups) are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your (including the two groups) worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you (including the two groups) worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you (including the two groups). As I mentioned earlier, you seem to drawing your point from an encyclopedia rather than from the words of Scripture.I wonder if you have lost sight of what in Acts 17 is really pertinent to this discussion. It is irrelevant whether the Epicureans or the Stoics or both had to be idolatrous in some way or another. The point is that neither of those groups were the ones worshiping on an altar to an unknown God.
For the purposes of this discussion, I do not find any evidence that requires holding that what Paul preached in his message against idolatry involving physical objects had to also apply to what whoever it was that worshiped on that altar to the unknown God was doing on that altar.I’m don’t know exactly what people were “doing on the altar.” All I can see from the passage is that Paul referred to the altar as an “object of worship” and then he preached that God alone should be worshipped, but not in the idolatrous way that Athenians normally worshipped.
I think that there will not be any profit in any further discussion of Acts 17.It’s not surprising you say that, since you keep repeating the same opinion without any real support.
[RajeshG]I’m not sure what you mean by “different types of material.” Does the Bible contain standards by which we may determine what is acceptable to God, or doesn’t it?In His wisdom, the Spirit has chosen not to give us definitions of or exhaustive listings of what is acceptable or pleasing to God in worship. We have to work with what He has chosen to give us, which is a whole Bible full of different types of material.
Discussing how we determine whether worship in any given occasion was accepted or not is a key part of this discussion, as so many of the comments so far have shown.So far in this thread, I’ve been assuming that “acceptable” means “pleasing to God.” I recognize that is just an assumption. I might be wrong. You might have a different view of what acceptable means and therefore come to a different conclusion about a passage than what I come to. If you’re not willing to discuss a definition of a word contained in your opening question, then how could any aspect of this conversation be profitable? I might not be knowing what your question even means.“Acceptable” and “pleasing to God” are both ways that God has communicated His acceptance of worship at various times. Establishing definitions of both and discussing how they interrelate is not what I believe would be profitable. Rather, we should continue to examine passages to see what they reveal about divine acceptance or rejection of worship and how they do so.
[Kevin Miller]The Bible has narrative passages, parables, prophecies, epistolary explanations, etc.I’m not sure what you mean by “different types of material.” Does the Bible contain standards by which we may determine what is acceptable to God, or doesn’t it?
As I said before, the Bible does not provide any exhaustive list anywhere of what those standards are. The Spirit has left it up to us to study the Bible to determine what they are.
[Kevin Miller]I reject the approach of trying to define something ahead of time when it is something that the Bible does not define and then try to squeeze everything in the Bible into a definition. I am not definitively saying that this is what you are wanting me to do, but perhaps it may be.So far in this thread, I’ve been assuming that “acceptable” means “pleasing to God.” I recognize that is just an assumption. I might be wrong. You might have a different view of what acceptable means and therefore come to a different conclusion about a passage than what I come to. If you’re not willing to discuss a definition of a word contained in your opening question, then how could any aspect of this conversation be profitable? I might not be knowing what your question even means.
Studying the topic of this post can be and is profitable because we have explicit passages that tell us explicitly what God has accepted in worship or what He has said has pleased Him in worship. The task of studying all of that material and formulating a comprehensive theology of what is acceptable to God in worship is an enormous task that must not be skewed by trying to define it ahead of time without first having thoroughly examined all the relevant data.
I am not going to waste any time in trying to provide or discuss any definitions. I emphatically believe that is a wrong methodology when God does not Himself provide such definitions, etc.
Some day, God is going to bring about universal worship that will include worship from all those who are still unbelievers at that point in time:
Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
When those unbelievers render that worship in the direct and visible presence of Deity, that worship will be accepted by God because He is going to compel them to worship the right Object through right actions (bowing the knee, confessing with the tongue) and right speech (“Jesus Christ is Lord”).
Because they will still be unbelievers when they do this, they will not be doing it willingly with a right heart before God—but the bowing of the knees and the confession will still be acceptable to God and pleasing to Him because all entities will be forced to visibly and audibly give God the glory that is due His name.
Prior to that day, we have to examine various passages to determine what we can about whether God accepts worship from some unbelievers.
The account provided in Numbers 22-25 of Balaam’s activities shows an unbeliever repeatedly engaging in worship activities that apparently were accepted by God at least to some extent.
(1) Balaam prostrated himself in the direct and visible presence of Deity:
Numbers 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.
(2) Balaam repeatedly directed Balak to build altars for him upon which sacrifices were offered prior to Balaam’s having direct interaction with God:
Numbers 23:1 And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven oxen and seven rams. 2 And Balak did as Balaam had spoken; and Balak and Balaam offered on every altar a bullock and a ram. 3 And Balaam said unto Balak, Stand by thy burnt offering, and I will go: peradventure the LORD will come to meet me: and whatsoever he sheweth me I will tell thee. And he went to an high place. 4 And God met Balaam: and he said unto him, I have prepared seven altars, and I have offered upon every altar a bullock and a ram. 5 And the LORD put a word in Balaam’s mouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus thou shalt speak.
See also Num. 23:14-26 and 14:27-30 for two more instances
In spite of NT revelation about Balaam that strongly points to his being a wicked unbeliever (2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 1:11; Rev. 2:14), the passages in Numbers show repeated divine responses to some of his worship activities.
[RajeshG]I think you have an exaggerated notion in your mind of what I’m asking for when I want you to define something. I’m certainly NOT asking for you to “squeeze everything” into a definition. Nor am I asking for the “enormous task” of “formulating a comprehensive theology.” At this stage, I’m just trying to figure out your “starting points,” so that I don’t ask questions that completely miss any point you are trying to make with an example. You say you want to examine “all the relevant data,” but if I am wondering why you think an example is relevant, is it okay if I ask you? You make it sound as if you think it would be a waste of time to explain why any example is a relevant example.I reject the approach of trying to define something ahead of time when it is something that the Bible does not define and then try to squeeze everything in the Bible into a definition. I am not definitively saying that this is what you are wanting me to do, but perhaps it may be.
Studying the topic of this post can be and is profitable because we have explicit passages that tell us explicitly what God has accepted in worship or what He has said has pleased Him in worship. The task of studying all of that material and formulating a comprehensive theology of what is acceptable to God in worship is an enormous task that must not be skewed by trying to define it ahead of time without first having thoroughly examined all the relevant data.
I am not going to waste any time in trying to provide or discuss any definitions. I emphatically believe that is a wrong methodology when God does not Himself provide such definitions, etc.
[RajeshG]No, I don’t see any extent in which his worship activities were accepted by God. Balak and Balaam kept offering sacrifices hoping those sacrifices would make God change His mind about blessing Israel, as if God could be manipulated with sacrifices.The account provided in Numbers 22-25 of Balaam’s activities shows an unbeliever repeatedly engaging in worship activities that apparently were accepted by God at least to some extent.
[RajeshG]This “glory that is due to his name” is one of the reasons I wrote this on page two - “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.”Because they will still be unbelievers when they do this, they will not be doing it willingly with a right heart before God—but the bowing of the knees and the confession will still be acceptable to God and pleasing to Him because all entities will be forced to visibly and audibly give God the glory that is due His name.
[Kevin Miller]The concepts of acceptance or rejection are so basic and easily understood and so often repeated in Scripture that there should not be any need for any explanation of what they mean. I do not know what else you are wanting.I think you have an exaggerated notion in your mind of what I’m asking for when I want you to define something. I’m certainly NOT asking for you to “squeeze everything” into a definition. Nor am I asking for the “enormous task” of “formulating a comprehensive theology.” At this stage, I’m just trying to figure out your “starting points,” so that I don’t ask questions that completely miss any point you are trying to make with an example. You say you want to examine “all the relevant data,” but if I am wondering why you think an example is relevant, is it okay if I ask you? You make it sound as if you think it would be a waste of time to explain why any example is a relevant example.
For this study, I am examining any passages about unbelievers who engage in worship activities such that the passage itself either directly or indirectly reveals or suggests some level of divine responsiveness to those activities. We have already looked at many of them.
Of those passages, it is indisputable that Cornelius was an unbeliever who engaged in worship activities that God accepted while he was still an unbeliever.
The other passages that we have looked at earlier (Samuel, Lydia, Acts 17) differ from Acts 10-11 because they do not have explicit statements directly about divine responses to the worship activities of the people involved.
I am fine with continuing to discuss on a passage-by-passage basis why the passage is or is not relevant, but I am not going to spend any time on discussions of definitions.
[Kevin Miller]The only way that I know how to evaluate the validity of your second sentence is to keep studying all the relevant passages to see what we can learn. There is no valid way to predetermine what those reasons might be or whether that understanding of God’s default position is correct.This “glory that is due to his name” is one of the reasons I wrote this on page two - “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.”
The concepts of acceptance or rejection are so basic and easily understood and so often repeated in Scripture that there should not be any need for any explanation of what they mean. I do not know what else you are wanting.
For this study, I am examining any passages about unbelievers who engage in worship activities such that the passage itself either directly or indirectly reveals or suggests some level of divine responsiveness to those activities. We have already looked at many of them.
Of those passages, it is indisputable that Cornelius was an unbeliever who engaged in worship activities that God accepted while he was still an unbeliever. Similarly, at the end, all unbelievers will engage in worship that God will accept (Philip. 2).
The other passages that we have looked at earlier (Samuel, Lydia, Acts 17) differ from Acts 10-11 because they do not have explicit statements directly about divine responses to the worship activities of the people involved. Lydia was clearly an unbeliever, as were those who worshiped ignorantly on the altar to an unknown God.
Whether Samuel was an unbeliever is disputed, but there is no doubt that his worship was accepted. There is no explicit statement about Lydia’s worship being accepted prior to her salvation, but there isn’t anything in the context to indicate otherwise. Whether the ignorant worship of those who offered on the altar to the unknown God was accepted in Acts 17 is disputed.
I am fine with continuing to discuss on a passage-by-passage basis why the passage is or is not relevant, but I am not going to spend any time on discussions of definitions.
[Kevin Miller]Look again at what the passage says:No, I don’t see any extent in which his worship activities were accepted by God. Balak and Balaam kept offering sacrifices hoping those sacrifices would make God change His mind about blessing Israel, as if God could be manipulated with sacrifices.
Numbers 23:1 And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven oxen and seven rams. 2 And Balak did as Balaam had spoken; and Balak and Balaam offered on every altar a bullock and a ram. 3 And Balaam said unto Balak, Stand by thy burnt offering, and I will go: peradventure the LORD will come to meet me: and whatsoever he sheweth me I will tell thee. And he went to an high place.
4 And God met Balaam: and he said unto him, I have prepared seven altars, and I have offered upon every altar a bullock and a ram. 5 And the LORD put a word in Balaam’s mouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus thou shalt speak.
Balaam did not know whether God would respond to his sacrifices or not: “peradventure …” (23:3). The text tells us that God did choose to meet Balaam. Balaam had no ability to determine whether God would do that or not.
When God met Balaam, Balaam talked about how he had prepared those altars and sacrificed upon them. Note that there is no record of a divine reproof of Balaam for having done so.
Furthermore, God chose to put a word in Balaam’s mouth. God could have chosen not to meet Balaam at all. He could have chosen to reprove him strongly for trying to manipulate Him through those sacrifices, as you assert he did.
He could have chosen to withhold any further revelation to Balaam. The passage, however, shows that God did not choose to do any of those things in response to Balaam’s offering sacrifices on those altars.
Compare what God did with Balaam to what He did with king Saul when He refused to respond to Saul in any way (1 Sam. 28:6). Why did God continue to respond to the sacrifices of Balaam?
I find some significant parallels between the account of Balaam in Num. 23:1-5 with the account of Solomon’s offering many sacrifices and the Lord appearing to him at night, etc.
2 Chronicles 1:6 And Solomon went up thither to the brasen altar before the LORD, which was at the tabernacle of the congregation, and offered a thousand burnt offerings upon it. 7 In that night did God appear unto Solomon, and said unto him, Ask what I shall give thee.
Because the Spirit has revealed both of these accounts to us with the strong parallels between them, we must account for these similarities in what we make of God’s dealings with Balaam concerning the sacrifices that he offered.
Discussion