Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism

I have followed most of this thread with some interest, but time constraints and other pressing concerns have not allowed me to participate actively.
At some point, I hope that the discussion gets to the final revelation in Scripture concerning how it is wrong for Christians to eat meat offered to idols—the glorified Christ confronted believers in two churches that were His churches in the late first century A.D. about people in those churches who were being led astray into eating meat offered to idols:

Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
Revelation 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
Any proper Christian understanding of this subject must account for this final revelation concerning Christians’ eating meat offered to idols.

[Dan Miller]

AndyE wrote:I think the way I would put it is, “The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat and some thought they could eat in the temple, too”

Ok. I’m reading this thinking, this is pretty much what I think - what are we arguing about???

But I think this is the difference: (italics is my add-on to distinguish our thoughts)

Andy: The strong in ch8 believed it was ok to eat idol-meat and some thought they could eat in the temple, too - however, the thinking that they can eat in the temple was not part of what Paul was condoning as “knowledge” and “right.”

Dan: The strong in ch8 believed it was ok to eat idol-meat and they thought they could eat in the temple - and the thinking that they can eat in the temple was part of what Paul was acknowledging as “knowledge” and “right.”

Lee and Rajesh are both pointing out that εἰδωλόθυτον was prohibited in Acts (clearly and forcefully as Lee said) and again in Revelation (as Rajesh said).

This is indeed an excellent starting point: idolatry is evil. That is true OT and NT and forever!

The debate in Corinth (and Rome, though Lee disagrees) was not over whether idolatry was wrong. It was over what constitutes idolatry. It’s the same thing going on in the other thread. Everyone agrees that sacrilege and blasphemy are evil; the question is revolving around what is and isn’t sacrilege or blasphemy.

4 problems with Andy’s view:

1. Ben Witherington teaches that εἰδωλοθύτων (idol-things, 8:1 and Acts 15) and ἱερόθυτόν (idol-things, 10:28) are technical terms that mean Temple-eaten-idol-meat and Market-bought-idol-meat, respectively. I think he’s probably right and if so, 8:1 introduces the topic as Temple-idol-meat. This honestly isn’t a great reason; he could be wrong that these had the precise meanings he claims.

2. If Paul believed that the strong only believed that their knowledge justified market-idol-meat, then why would he suggest that they would eat in the temple in 8:10? Nobody likes their position being made out to be something much worse than they actually think. It seems pretty obvious that Paul locates the “right” in the mind of the strong (the eaters) in v.9. Then he suggests that the application of that right would be to eat in the temple. If the eaters didn’t believe their knowledge/right extended to the temple, Paul would have been unfairly twisting their words into something they never said.

3. Paul spends 10:1-22 arguing against eating in the temple. That’s pretty long. He’s serious. He takes the time to make a careful case, based on OT Law, which is for us. Paul clearly believes that temple-eating is a significant problem in Corinth. Paul clearly believed temple-eating was happening and that a long careful argument was necessary to stop it.

4. By v.19, Paul was approaching his conclusion, which was obviously that eating in the temple was wrong. In v.19 he anticipated an objection that his readers would make: “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?” Paul is putting this objection in the mouths of his temple-eating readers. It’s a question written with an expected “No” answer: “Are you saying an idol is something? Say it ain’t so!”

This is such an important piece of this puzzle. For the last 18 verses, Paul has been stepping on the toes of the temple-eaters. He knows they know where he’s going. And he knows their objection. If he’s telling them they can’t eat in the temple, then they want their key piece of knowledge confirmed: “An idol is nothing.” This was the linchpin of the idol-meat-eating argument in ch. 8 and connects the eaters in ch8 with the eaters here in ch10.

Note, however, that Paul does not confirm their claim. He contradicts it. The “No” that begins v.20 doesn’t belong. Paul’s answer: Yes - the idol is something - there are evil spirits behind the idols. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.

[RajeshG] it is wrong for Christians to eat meat offered to idols

In the US, is “eat meat offered to idols” even an issue? Where would one find this meat?

[Dan Miller]

…

The debate in Corinth (and Rome, though Lee disagrees) was not over whether idolatry was wrong. It was over what constitutes idolatry. …

emphasis mine

There are 4 seminal moments in the OT where the incursion of idolatry redefines Jewish society.

The golden calf—Exod. 32:6 “And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.”

Balaam and Peor—Numbers 25:1-3 “And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.”

Jeroboam and the calves at Dan and Bethel—I Kings 12:26-30 “And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam…Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.”

Ahab and Jezebel—I Kings 16:30-33 “And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him. And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him. And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.”

Two of those moments are specifically used as examples of the idolatry that must be fled from by “abstain[ing] from pollutions of idols”. The discussion of meat offered to idols in I Cor. 10:6-8 proposes these examples—“Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.”—as it moves toward its conclusion of “flee from idolatry”; “…ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils…”; and “…eat not…”.

A third moment is directly referenced concerning the influence of idolatry in the church of Jesus Christ from the mouth of the Savior Himself through revelation given to John in Rev. 2:20—“Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.” Immorality is the conjoined twin of idolatry.

IOW, the New Testament, citing the Old Testament narratives and history, recognizes that the great majority of the idolatry that so infected called out Israel in the wilderness and under the kings was ushered in first through proximity, then through participation (the “pollutions of idols”), and eventually into brazen practice (Num. 25:2).

There are 3 levels of avoidance that are absolutely mandated for the obedient believer/church:

1. “…abstain from the pollutions of idols…” Acts 15
2. “…guard yourselves from idols [i.e., the instruments and inventions of idolatry]…” I John 5
3. “…flee from idolatry…” I Cor. 10

Failure at any level eventually constitutes idolatry. God hates idolatry.

[Craig Toliver]

RajeshG wrote:it is wrong for Christians to eat meat offered to idols

In the US, is “eat meat offered to idols” even an issue? Where would one find this meat?

[RajeshG]

Craig Toliver wrote:

RajeshG wrote:
it is wrong for Christians to eat meat offered to idols

In the US, is “eat meat offered to idols” even an issue? Where would one find this meat?

There are temples in many major cities in the US where people can obtain food items that have been offered in one manner or another to their physical objects of worship. At various functions that take place at those religious centers, such food is made widely available.

As Christian influences continue to wane in our country and other religions continue to increase in prominence and influence, problems with things associated with idolatry will likely become a greater issue.

[Dan Miller]

1. Ben Witherington teaches that εἰδωλοθύτων (idol-things, 8:1 and Acts 15) and ἱερόθυτόν (idol-things, 10:28) are technical terms that mean Temple-eaten-idol-meat and Market-bought-idol-meat, respectively. I think he’s probably right and if so, 8:1 introduces the topic as Temple-idol-meat. This honestly isn’t a great reason; he could be wrong that these had the precise meanings he claims.

I have access to the 1993 Tyndale Bulletin where he argues for this, so I will take a look at it.

2. If Paul believed that the strong only believed that their knowledge justified market-idol-meat, then why would he suggest that they would eat in the temple in 8:10? Nobody likes their position being made out to be something much worse than they actually think. It seems pretty obvious that Paul locates the “right” in the mind of the strong (the eaters) in v.9. Then he suggests that the application of that right would be to eat in the temple. If the eaters didn’t believe their knowledge/right extended to the temple, Paul would have been unfairly twisting their words into something they never said.

Clearly there were some strong-meat-eating brothers who ate meat in the pagan temple. Paul is clearly dealing with those who thought their right/knowledge allowed them to eat in the pagan temple. My objection is that not everyone with the correct knowledge that Paul and the strong believed they could eat meat in the pagan temple. Clearly Paul had the correct knowledge and understood his rights correctly and he didn’t believe that. I think Paul is dealing, among other things, with those who incorrectly think their correct knowledge allows them to eat meat in the pagan temple.

Here is where I think we differ.

Dan – Strong think that their correct knowledge that an idol is nothing gives them a right to eat meat anywhere, including in the pagan temple.

Andy – Strong think that their correct knowledge that an idol is nothing them a right to eat meat in general, and some think that extends to eating in the temple.

Maybe it comes down to Ben Witherington’s argument – does things sacrificed to idols mean specifically “temple-eaten-idol-meat.” If it does, then I think that would invalidate my general position. So I need to look at this possibility more carefully.

3. Paul spends 10:1-22 arguing against eating in the temple. That’s pretty long. He’s serious. He takes the time to make a careful case, based on OT Law, which is for us. Paul clearly believes that temple-eating is a significant problem in Corinth. Paul clearly believed temple-eating was happening and that a long careful argument was necessary to stop it.

I agree with what you are saying here. Not sure that is says anything against my position.

4. By v.19, Paul was approaching his conclusion, which was obviously that eating in the temple was wrong. In v.19 he anticipated an objection that his readers would make: “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?” Paul is putting this objection in the mouths of his temple-eating readers. It’s a question written with an expected “No” answer: “Are you saying an idol is something? Say it ain’t so!”

This is such an important piece of this puzzle. For the last 18 verses, Paul has been stepping on the toes of the temple-eaters. He knows they know where he’s going. And he knows their objection. If he’s telling them they can’t eat in the temple, then they want their key piece of knowledge confirmed: “An idol is nothing.” This was the linchpin of the idol-meat-eating argument in ch. 8 and connects the eaters in ch8 with the eaters here in ch10.

Note, however, that Paul does not confirm their claim. He contradicts it. The “No” that begins v.20 doesn’t belong. Paul’s answer: Yes - the idol is something - there are evil spirits behind the idols. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.

Maybe the “contradiction” or misunderstanding is actually this point, what does it mean for an idol to be nothing. We know it is just a block of wood or a carved stone – and that reality does give us some freedom – BUT and this is a big but, there is a demonic reality behind what is going on, and so (ch 10) if you know for sure that the meat has been offered to idols, you can’t partake.

[AndyE] Here is where I think we differ.

Dan – Strong think that their correct knowledge that an idol is nothing gives them a right to eat meat anywhere, including in the pagan temple.

Andy – Strong think that their correct knowledge that an idol is nothing them a right to eat meat in general, and some think that extends to eating in the temple.

No, actually - here’s mine:

Dan - Strong think that their knowledge (that an idol is nothing) gives them a right to eat meat anywhere, including in the pagan temple. The weak, on the other hand, think that the idol is “real” and they therefore think that eating the idol-meat is wrong. HOWEVER, that strong “knowledge” is WRONG. The weak are right on this one. The idol is real and so what is offered is “really offered,” like they said. Their conscience would be bothered by eating and it SHOULD BE!

Just to add to the complexity of all this, turns out there is a textual variant in 10:28, where the later texts read eidolothuton but the older texts read hierothutos. I tend to viewing the older manuscripts as better and so I’ll at least grant the difference in terminology here in 10:28, but…

I didn’t find Witherington’s paper regarding eidolothuton all that persuasive. The term eidolothuton is used in 4 Macc 5:2 in relation to an event that took place at a high place. There is a use of this word in the Sibylline Oracles (whatever they are…) and the eating of blood, which per Witherington indicates the eating most likely took place in the temple where the animal was sacrificed. He also references the Didache which says eidolothuton is the worship of dead god, which, per Witherinton, means in a pagan temple. These are hardly convincing. His conclusion is telling – “there is nothing in any of these references to dispute the thesis that eidolothuton means meat consumed in the presence of an idol…”

The next part of his article is pretty interesting as it details the typical pagan sacrificial system and how it operated.

Then he looks at NT evidence, which was more or less about why his view made the most sense of the various passages, including Rev 2:13-14 which references eidolothuton in proximity to a mention of the fact that the church of Pergamum dwells where Satan’s throne (i.e., pagan temple) is. So, the proximity argument again.

Probably his best evidence is a few church fathers that he quotes and summaries as those who understand eidolothuton the same way Witherington does. It’s hard to evaluate this evidence without full contextual quotations, which he does not supply.

The NIGTC commentary on 1st Corinthians by Thiselton discusses this topic, referencing this journal article and several others, and comes to the conclusion that the best translation is “meat associated with offerings to pagan deities.” All in all, I don’t think we can conclude who is right based solely on the distinction between eidolothuton and hierothutos.

[AndyE] Just to add to the complexity of all this, turns out there is a textual variant in 10:28, where the later texts read eidolothuton but the older texts read hierothutos.

[AndyE] I didn’t find Witherington’s paper regarding eidolothuton all that persuasive. … His conclusion is telling – “there is nothing in any of these references to dispute the thesis that eidolothuton means meat consumed in the presence of an idol…”

I agree. I do think he’s probably right. Probably. Probably I should have just left that out.

[AndyE]

…

Maybe the “contradiction” or misunderstanding is actually this point, what does it mean for an idol to be nothing. We know it is just a block of wood or a carved stone – and that reality does give us some freedom – BUT and this is a big but, there is a demonic reality behind what is going on, and so (ch 10) if you know for sure that the meat has been offered to idols, you can’t partake.

emphasis mine

In answer to your question—there are 3 determining factors that define idolatry, idols, and pollutions of idols.

1. Scripture
2. Culture—this is where the discussion centers in Acts 15 and here in I Corinthians
3. The individual

Scripture spends the greatest amount of its time dealing with idolatry at the cultural/societal level. Dt. 7:25-26 (the instructions of a called out people to overthrow the present culture of the land)—“The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.” It is quite clear that the culture of idolatry has profaned the neutrality of gold, the universal basis of commerce almost since the dawn of history. Continue through the scripture narrative and you find the same abominable designation to trees (groves), meat (NT), or any number of other things. Objects and actions have idolatrous meaning because the culture assigns and accepts them as such. It is the worship of the culture.

In our current world what is the difference between the sacred cow of India and the beef being processed daily in Kansas City? The Indian cow has been granted deific stature based solely on a significant portion of the Indian culture assigning it such. The cow in Kansas City is simply delicious (especially the brisket burnt ends sandwich served at Kansas Joes’ Barbeque). But even though scripture does not identify the deific nature of that Indian cow its idolatrous significance in certain cultures is real!

Time and cultural non-acceptance may be the factors that change an idolatrous image into a trinket, piece of wood or stone, or simply nothing. And this change of status may be the one area that Rom. 14 enters the idol meat discussion.

As far as identifying what constitutes the cultural idolatry and, hence, the pollutions of that idolatry, the first NT identification came from the assembled elders in Jerusalem. There they first discerned the general need—“…they abstain from pollutions of idol…” followed almost immediately with the identification of a specific area of concern—“…abstain from meats offered to idols—”. If I believe in the NT office of “elder” then I think a very legitimate function of that office is scripturally identifying what constitutes the current idolatry and its idols/pollutions in any given culture. Cultures change according to their current corporate worship and idolatry changes geographically, demographically, and generationally.

[AndyE]… what does it mean for an idol to be nothing. We know it is just a block of wood or a carved stone – and that reality does give us some freedom – BUT and this is a big but, there is a demonic reality behind what is going on, and so (ch 10) if you know for sure that the meat has been offered to idols, you can’t partake.

I have a friend who was convinced that the difference between ch8 and ch10 must be that in ch8 the idol is nothing, not a false god. But in ch10, it’s a demon. So IF there’s a demon behind it, then it’s not ok.

I don’t I accept that. I agree pretty much with Lee’s three:

1- Scripture - I’ll come back to this one - Lee has made a good start in another post

2- Culture - I think this is one Paul is pointing to when he said, v19, “I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God” _KJV. The intention of the pagans WAS to worship a false god. And when he says, v20, “I do not want you to be participants with demons” _ESV. The eating of the sacrifice is a participation (in ch11 a proclamation). These are actions that announce to the culture fellowship, dependence, favor-seeking, worship, etc.

3- Individual - Do you, in your heart, think of this idol and it’s meat with fellowship, dependence, favor-seeking, worship, etc. for the idol? If you do, then it’s an idol, a false god. But this can’t be your only test. I think this was the one that the “strong” were using when they said, “We think of the idol as nothing.” And they have a point, sorta. But the culture does see the whole thing as a “sacrifice to devils,” so… back to #2.

Also, note that “nothingness” isn’t a factor one way or another in the discussion of market-meat in 10:25-31.

There Paul deals with ways the meat might be fine to eat. “Ask no questions” means that if you don’t know, don’t worry about it.

But for centuries Jews would definitely object to meat that was even possibly tainted by idolatry. So think what Paul is concerned about here with market meat. Is the real-ness of the idol a factor? No. It’s the exact same idols as in 10:1-23 and the same demons.

So when we get to the level of consideration of market-meat, the argument no longer revolves around the nothing-ness of the idol.

It’s about something else. So again, I see the nothingness argument as related to temple-meat.