Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism
“The source of the problem, ultimately, is a general sense, born out of sentiments endemic in broader culture, and perpetuated at times in Christian homes and churches, that cultivating discipline and developing a work ethic are somehow dangerous, legalistic, or antithetical to the Christian Gospel. This is patently false.” - Snoeberger
- 43 views
I started with this:
[AndyE]I would add one other thing…they are “nothing” in the sense that they are impotent — can’t see, can’t hear, can’t move, can’t help. Having said that, I’m not sure what God might allow a demon to do, but I don’t think that invalidates the point, since the Bible makes this point in several places.
But Lee and Rajesh have helped greatly in giving more insight.
Re: the carved monkey:
Deuteronomy 7:25 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 therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. 26 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.
Re: Paul saying there were demons:
1 Cor 10:17 “…ἃ θύουσιν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ θύουσιν…” (the things are sacrificed to demons not sacrificed God) (“I say” isn’t in the Greek text. )
Deut 32:16 “…ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ…”
Paul seems to be quoting Deuteronomy. Therefore we should see the “demons” statement as a generality about idols, not a specific declaration regarding a particular Corinthian idol.
[RajeshG]…
Yes, it is still an idol. God remembers all the evil that has been done with it and toward it.
In addition, there always remains the possibility that some new group of people would seek to revive its worship. Finally, no doubt, there are many who venerate it as a “work of art” that they believe should be preserved as an important part of humanity’s heritage, but God’s view of it is clear in Deut. 7:26 and other similar passages.
II Kings 5:17-19 “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 [cf. Exodus 20:24-25] . 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. And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way.”
I’m kind of curious as to how you rectify this narrative with your application that an idolatrous object retains its cursed status when it has not been an object of veneration at practically any level for hundreds, even thousands of years. Here it is obvious that a change has occurred in the Lord’s consideration of Namaan, now a believer and exclusive worshipper of God, but duty bound to enter an active idol temple and assist his king in practicing that idolatry. The only way I can take Elisha’s “go in peace” is as an affirmative confirmation of Naaman’s request.
Lee
[Lee]I’m not seeing the connection between the two situations. Naaman as a new believer acknowledged that what he would be doing under compulsion would still be wrong and asked for pardon. There isn’t anything in the account that says that it was going to be acceptable to God for Naaman to do what he would do—Naaman would still need pardoning, which God perhaps would grant to him for a time.II Kings 5:17-19 “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 [cf. Exodus 20:24-25] . 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. And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way.”
I’m kind of curious as to how you rectify this narrative with your application that an idolatrous object retains its cursed status when it has not been an object of veneration at practically any level for hundreds, even thousands of years. Here it is obvious that a change has occurred in the Lord’s consideration of Namaan, now a believer and exclusive worshipper of God, but duty bound to enter an active idol temple and assist his king in practicing that idolatry. The only way I can take Elisha’s “go in peace” is as an affirmative confirmation of Naaman’s request.
The hope and expectation would be that over time as Naaman grew in his walk with the true God, he would come to the point where he would no longer consent to participate in that idolatry and be willing to take whatever consequences might come his way as a result.
There’s no comparing Naaman’s situation with that of a believer who voluntarily seeks to keep an accursed object as a “trinket.”
[Lee] II Kings 5:17-19 “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 [cf. Exodus 20:24-25] . 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. And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way.”I’m kind of curious as to how you rectify this narrative with your application that an idolatrous object retains its cursed status when it has not been an object of veneration at practically any level for hundreds, even thousands of years. Here it is obvious that a change has occurred in the Lord’s consideration of Namaan, now a believer and exclusive worshipper of God, but duty bound to enter an active idol temple and assist his king in practicing that idolatry. The only way I can take Elisha’s “go in peace” is as an affirmative confirmation of Naaman’s request.
Lee, I agree with your view of this passage.
Have you read many commentaries on this? It has been a while since I did, but they generally say that Elisha could not possibly have been condoning Naaman’s plan, so “Go in peace” must just be his way of saying “goodbye.”
I don’t agree. I tend to think that “Go in Shalom” is a statement that Elisha considers his plan to put him in peace with God. But it is hard to be sure. So I have left this passage out of my book.
What Paul says is not limited to this: “In the case of Corinth, Paul said there was a demon.” Nor does what he says show that he spoke of idols as “having” demons.
His statement is a general statement that applies to all Gentiles who sacrificethings to idols:
I don’t know what I meant by having and I don’t know a better way to phrase the relationship between the idol and the demon.
Idolatry was forbidden and the Corinthians lived in a city full of idols.
The Corinthians were faced with the question of whether the meat they had available was idolatrous. The question could be asked for meat in the idol’s temple and in the market.
Temple-idol-meat
When Paul addressed the question of temple-idol-meat, he debated and answered the matter on basis of the “nothingness” of the idol:
- Idol worship is demon worship.
- What was offered was really offered.
- Paul knew this contradicted the “nothing” argument.
- This meant temple-idol-meat was idolatry and must not be eaten.
(Our study here in this thread confirms that idols are not “nothing” in the sense that they don’t violate the first commandment. They are demonic false gods.)
Market-idol-meat (next, but Andy, do you agree so far?)
[Dan Miller]Lee, I agree with your view of this passage.
Have you read many commentaries on this? It has been a while since I did, but they generally say that Elisha could not possibly have been condoning Naaman’s plan, so “Go in peace” must just be his way of saying “goodbye.”
I don’t agree. I tend to think that “Go in Shalom” is a statement that Elisha considers his plan to put him in peace with God. But it is hard to be sure. So I have left this passage out of my book.
Not a big fan of commentaries. However, once I’ve pored through a passage and think I have determined its meaning I double-check with commentaries, etc. After 2000 years of scrupulous study by people way more learned than I somebody has gotten it right besides me.
I firmly believe if the obvious makes sense don’t try to find another sense.
For example, the passage in question is not about liberty. It is about meat offered to idols. I Cor. 7:1 & 8:1 “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me…Now as touching things offered unto idols…”. It is in response to a written request. The Corinthian church is wanting clarity from one of the letters/messages they had received via the council in Jerusalem. Paul is not using their request as a springboard to discuss liberty, strong, weak, or whatever except as a byproduct of the discussion. The issue is immorality and idolatry. Our problem in recent years is that we have bypassed the obvious sense to indulge ourselves in our perceived liberty and strength, missing the obvious sense—i.e., you live in Corinth which is absolutely defined by immorality and idolatry. Here is how you function in relative purity in that culture: get married; don’t partake of the idolatry at any level.
We drag this discussion to Rom. 14, which has absolutely nothing to do with culturally practiced idolatry, because only then does it say what we want Corinthians to conclude to begin with.
Idolatrous incursion into the people of God has not changed its MO since the beginning of time. Convenient inclusion.
- The golden calf—provide us something we can see because we don’t know where Moses is
- Peor—“…called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat…” under the counsel of Balaam
- Jeroboam (who “caused Israel to sin…”)—”…it is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem…
You can’t mess with idolatry and live pure or obedient.
Lee
[Dan Miller] It has been suggested that there was a group of Corinthians who, on the basis of the “nothing” argument, ate market-idol-meat and did NOT eat in the temple. However, the text of 1 Corinthians shows that Paul did not believe he was interacting with such a group.
I feel like we are getting hung up on this issue. I do disagree, but I’m not sure how important that is in our understanding of the passage. I find it hard to believe that no one in the Corinthian church got it right before Paul wrote his letter. Did no one who felt at liberty to eat market-idol-meat not understand the demonic influence that Paul would explain in chapter 10 and avoid eating at the temple complex? Or did not one person among the strong have no consideration for the consciences of the weak?
Temple-idol-meat
When Paul addressed the question of temple-idol-meat, he debated and answered the matter on basis of the “nothingness” of the idol:
- Idol worship is demon worship.
- What was offered was really offered.
So far, so good.
- Paul knew this contradicted the “nothing” argument.
I don’t think it contradicted Paul’s earlier “nothing” argument (which is not really an argument but a point of concession or agreement). Paul is saying, you can be right about the fact that an idol is just a block of word or piece of carved stone, and that Aphrodite and Athena are not real, they can’t see or hear or speak or do anything…BUT wrong in thinking that it therefore doesn’t matter what you do regarding meat, because there is a demonic reality behind all that which IS real and which you must avoid. So, the “nothing” knowledge is not sufficient because it does not consider like it should — (1) the consciences of those who think those gods are real (“what was offered was really offered”) and (2) the demonic reality behind all this idol worship (“idol worship is demon worship”).
This meant temple-idol-meat was idolatry and must not be eaten.Close, but see above.
(Our study here in this thread confirms that idols are not “nothing” in the sense that they don’t violate the first commandment. They are demonic false gods.)Market-idol-meat (next, but Andy, do you agree so far?)
I just want to say I am appreciative of this discussion. I have read and interacted with a lot of writers on both Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10.
Andy, your approach is novel and so I especially appreciate the interaction with it. Have you read it anywhere?
I feel like we are getting hung up on this issue. I do disagree, but I’m not sure how important that is in our understanding of the passage. I find it hard to believe that no one in the Corinthian church got it right before Paul wrote his letter.
I am not arguing that no one got it right.
Did no one who felt at liberty to eat market-idol-meat not understand the demonic influence that Paul would explain in chapter 10 and avoid eating at the temple complex? Or did not one person among the strong have no consideration for the consciences of the weak?
Certainly a significant number did not understand the temple.
Temple-eating was a significant enough conclusion of the “nothing” idea that it was Paul’s main assumption for what they would do with their right (8:9-10).
Dan: Temple-idol-meat
When Paul addressed the question of temple-idol-meat, he debated and answered the matter on basis of the “nothingness” of the idol:
- Idol worship is demon worship.
- What was offered was really offered.
Andy: So far, so good.
Those are significant points.
Dan: - Paul knew this contradicted the “nothing” argument.
Andy: I don’t think it contradicted Paul’s earlier “nothing” argument …
This, too is significant. I base this on vv14-21 (especially 19-21). I made this point earlier, but maybe it got lost.
Paul argued that to eat of a sacrifice is to participate in that sacrifice (Lord’s Table(16-17), OT Israel(18)). He concluded that “you cannot” eat in the temple(21). But before making this conclusion, Paul wrote an objection-question in v19, meaning Paul was writing what he knew his readers would object: “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 anything(not “nothing”)? Say it ain’t so!”
If Paul is telling them they can’t eat in the temple, then they want their key piece of knowledge confirmed: “An idol is nothing.” This “nothingness” was the linchpin of the idol-meat-eating argument in ch. 8. This shows that Paul was aware that he was contradicting the “nothing” idea. And then (v20) Paul did contradict the “nothing” idea when he quoted Deuteronomy “what they offer to demons and not God.”
[Dan Miller]I just want to say I am appreciative of this discussion. I have read and interacted with a lot of writers on both Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10.
Andy, your approach is novel and so I especially appreciate the interaction with it. Have you read it anywhere?
I’ve written quite a few things in this thread, and so I’m not sure what portions you are referring to when you suggest that they are novel.
My understanding of what it means for an idol to be nothing, seems to have support. Garland writes, “One the one hand, Jews professed that idols have no existence…On the other hand, they recognized that idols do represent a demonic reality and that idols gods are subordinate powers….Idols are nonentities, but demonic powers used idols to inveigle humans into worshiping false Gods (Moffattt 1938:139).” [Garland, 372]
Regarding my understanding of “take care that this right of yours.”
Fee writes, ”Paul is warning them to take heed ‘lest this authority of yours (promoted in the previous verse),’ which Paul would quite agree with in the matter of food laws, be carried over to the eating of the cultic meals and thereby become not ‘freedom’ for others but ‘a stumbling block’ to them.” [Fee, 385]
My reading of Fee is that while Paul agreed with their basic right to eat meat, they need to “take heed” or be careful in how they exercise that right. Now to be fair, if you read his whole treatment, Fee does see the specific issue being that the Corinthians thought they had a right to eat in the pagan temple and that Paul was writing to correct that misunderstanding (and I would say he makes some good points). Fee also suggests that this terminology of rights or freedom is probably a term the Corinthians themselves used in their writing to Paul to justify their behavior. It could very well be true.
It seems like there are at least two ways to take Paul’s statement. First, we could see Paul agreeing with them that they have right to eat meat in general, but that they are abusing this right if they eat meat in the temple. Second, Paul could be writing sarcastically – this right of yours – you have reasoned to a right/freedom that is not legitimate, i.e., the right to eat in the temple. So, I obviously side with the first option.
[Dan Miller] Paul argued that to eat of a sacrifice is to participate in that sacrifice (Lord’s Table(16-17), OT Israel(18)). He concluded that “you cannot” eat in the temple(21). But before making this conclusion, Paul wrote an objection-question in v19, meaning Paul was writing what he knew his readers would object: “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 anything(not “nothing”)? Say it ain’t so!”If Paul is telling them they can’t eat in the temple, then they want their key piece of knowledge confirmed: “An idol is nothing.” This “nothingness” was the linchpin of the idol-meat-eating argument in ch. 8. This shows that Paul was aware that he was contradicting the “nothing” idea. And then (v20) Paul did contradict the “nothing” idea when he quoted Deuteronomy “what they offer to demons and not God.”
Idols are both something and nothing at the same time. There are two things true about idols but the Corinthians were only latching on to one of those truths. Paul is saying you are right, idols have no real existence (cf., Isa 37:19, “For they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone”), but you are only partially right, because idol worship involves real demonic activity (Deut 32:17, “They sacrificed to demons that were no gods…” and Psa 106:37-38, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons, they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan…”). So, in verse 19, he acknowleges the first while reminding them of the second.
Idols are both something and nothing at the same time.
This is why I asked for the tangent on what the idols were. What is idolatry?
When you’re talking about the “nothingness,” you bring up Isaiah 37:19, “For they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone”
But look at the context: 18 Truly, O LORD, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the nations and their lands, 19 and have cast their gods into the fire. For they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed.
Not “nothing,” therefore they don’t matter - “nothing,” therefore the should be destroyed.
My point (and I believe Paul’s) was that “nothingness” never meant the idol wasn’t a false god. It totally was. It never meant that the meat offered wasn’t really offered. It was. It never meant you could eat it. You couldn’t.
So, in verse 19, he acknowleges the first while reminding them of the second.
I just do not see how you see this in v.19. 10:1-22 is clearly written to those who use the “nothing” idea to argue for temple-eating.
Paul is saying: (paraphrased by me)
v. 14 “flee idolatry.”
vv. 15-18 “eating is participating in the sacrifice.”
v. 19 “I KNOW - you’re gonna object that the idol is nothing.”
v. 20 “It’s not nothing, it’s demonic!”
v. 21 “You can’t eat at the table of demons (which basically all idols are).”
[Dan Miller]So, what do you make of this statement by a commentator on this passage:Have you read many commentaries on this? It has been a while since I did, but they generally say that Elisha could not possibly have been condoning Naaman’s plan, so “Go in peace” must just be his way of saying “goodbye.”
I don’t agree. I tend to think that “Go in Shalom” is a statement that Elisha considers his plan to put him in peace with God. But it is hard to be sure. So I have left this passage out of my book.
“Elisha’s response is remarkable and shows something of God’s gentleness in dealing with believers in tricky moral and political circumstances. Elisha does not expect Naaman to abandon the world or withdraw into a ghetto where he can escape moral dilemmas and difficulties. As Paul says, “let each one remain with God in that condition in which he as called (1 Cor. 7:20). If one can leave that condition, one should; but there is no sin in remain in the condition in which one was called….But many Christians are zealots, insisting on far more ‘purity’ than do Paul or Elisha—not to mention God.”
It seems like Naaman realized the problem he faced, more so than the Corinthians did with eating in the pagan temple. I think Naaman knows it is wrong, but it is like he doesn’t have a choice. Did he? Does it matter that he was compelled by the king? How does this situation differ from that in Daniel and the worship of the Nebuchadnezzar image? Would it have been OK for those three Hebrews to say, I’m bowing down outwardly but inside I’m standing up?
it does seem like Elisha is giving Naaman a pass, but I”m not sure why or how it is consistent with these other passages.
[Dan Miller]So, what does Isaiah mean when he says, “they were no gods?” It’s the same thing that Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 8:4. Isaiah and Paul are in agreement. The Corinthians thought this, too. BUT, Isaiah also says, “cast their gods into the fire.” Isaiah says they are no gods and they are gods in the same passage. Same thing Paul is doing in 1 Cor 8-10, but not what the Corinthians were doing. They stopped at the first point of agreement.When you’re talking about the “nothingness,” you bring up Isaiah 37:19, “For they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone”
But look at the context: 18 Truly, O LORD, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the nations and their lands, 19 and have cast their gods into the fire. For they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed.
[quote[Not “nothing,” therefore they don’t matter - “nothing,” therefore the should be destroyed. Correct.
My point (and I believe Paul’s) was that “nothingness” never meant the idol wasn’t a false god. It totally was. It never meant that the meat offered wasn’t really offered. It was. It never meant you could eat it. You couldn’t.Correct.
I just do not see how you see this in v.19. 10:1-22 is clearly written to those who use the “nothing” idea to argue for temple-eating.Correct, Paul is clearly doing that. Maybe if you don’t get how I’m saying it, read Garland (if you have him) pp 479-480 on verses 10:19-20a. What he says there is basically exactly what I’m trying to say.
Discussion