Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism

Dan: I think the weak is substantially right.

Andy: Perhaps, but do you think the weak ate meat purchased in the market? The other thing to consider is that in 8:7, Paul says that “not all possess this [correct] knowledge.” That knowledge that he refers to here is correct, right? In other words, it seems that weak are also off due to their lack of complete knowledge.

You must bear in mind that I view the term “weak” differently. To me, it means “unable.” The question in ch8 is whether one believes that he can eat in the temple. Some were unable (=weak) to eat in the temple; others were, by their own reckoning, able (=strong) to eat in the temple.

So, the market? That’s another question, and the Corinthians would have to answer it. Paul seems, by virtue of his brevity, to consider that question much less controversial. But when we do turn to the market, the idol’s somethingness is the same as it was for the temple question.

Andy: Now we have to ask, in what way is the idol something to the weak? Was it something to him in that he valued it and worshiped it? No. Was it something to him in that the idol was real in some sense? Yes.

In what way was it real to him? Paul says in 8:7, that “some through former association with idols eat food as really offered to an idol.” To me that sounds like what Isaiah and Jeremiah objected to. The idolaters of their [the Corinthians] day were treating those blocks of wood as if they were real beings and real gods. …

I’m not sure what you mean about Isaiah. The pagans in Corinth did treat the idols as real spiritual beings. Did they believe that the physical idol was the spiritual being? Or did they believe it was a physical representation of a spiritual being? I guess I don’t know but I assume the latter. Regardless, to participate with the idol was to participate with the Corinthian spiritual world.

From a proper Jewish perspective, they were real false gods - in the sense that they were exactly what was prohibited in the idolatry commands.

The text of 1 Cor 8 says that the weak considered the meat to be “really offered to an idol.” And that that awareness was what separated his thinking from the knowledge of the strong. It doesn’t say the thought the statue was alive.

Andy: If you unwind all that, I think the best way to understand the strong’s objection in 10:19, is by reading it as, “Paul you are not saying an idol has a real existence and that there or other gods out there, are you?” Paul [says] , “no an idol has no real existence but there is a demonic reality to idol worship that you have not taken into account.”

I keep going back and forth as to how off we actually are from each other.

I want to focus on the bolded. I think we agree Paul was correcting the strong of ch8.

Paul’s correction is an ontological correction with practical consequences. Not ontological agreement with practical correction.

Ontological: the idol is not nothing in this sense: it’s demonic.

Practical: you can’t eat in the temple.

[Dan Miller] I’m not sure what you mean about Isaiah. The pagans in Corinth did treat the idols as real spiritual beings. Did they believe that the physical idol was the spiritual being? Or did they believe it was a physical representation of a spiritual being? I guess I don’t know but I assume the latter. Regardless, to participate with the idol was to participate with the Corinthian spiritual world.

Isaiah and Jeremiah emphasize the non-being aspect of the idols. The pagans thought the idols represented real gods, real spiritual beings. Those gods were like Santa, they didn’t really exist. The idols were just blocks of wood with no living god behind them. I feel like I agree with you here.

From a proper Jewish perspective, they were real false gods - in the sense that they were exactly what was prohibited in the idolatry commands.

All idols, though, are “real false gods” in the sense you believe in that they should not be worshipped, even if the so-called god they represent does not exist.

The text of 1 Cor 8 says that the weak considered the meat to be “really offered to an idol.” And that that awareness was what separated his thinking from the knowledge of the strong. [Andy-so far so good] It doesn’t say they thought the statue was alive.

This last part is where I differ. They used to think it was alive or that it represented a live being. What else could “really offered to an idol” actually mean? Paul and the strong can see that people are offering that meat to an idol, that people are actually doing that. That’s how they get the meat in the first place. Paul and the strong can see that people offer it to an idol with sincere believing hearts towards that idol. Sincere and believing what? Well, that the god the idol represented really exists and can do things for them.

[Dan Miller]

Andy: If you unwind all that, I think the best way to understand the strong’s objection in 10:19, is by reading it as, “Paul you are not saying an idol has a real existence and that there or other gods out there, are you?” Paul [says] , “no an idol has no real existence but there is a demonic reality to idol worship that you have not taken into account.”

I keep going back and forth as to how off we actually are from each other.

I want to focus on the bolded. I think we agree Paul was correcting the strong of ch8.

Paul’s correction is an ontological correction with practical consequences. Not ontological agreement with practical correction.

Ontological: the idol is not nothing in this sense: it’s demonic.

Practical: you can’t eat in the temple.

I think if we have any issues here, it is with our understanding of what Paul meant back in 8:4.

Maybe this is where we keep getting tripped up. You mean real in that it’s legitimately the type of thing God prohibits. That’s not what I mean by real. When I say “real” I mean a living god, i.e., Santa and Dagon are real if they are actual beings that exist. Pagans think that Santa and Dagon are actual beings that exist. Christians, Paul, Isaiah, Jeremiah should all disagree – those entities are just made up, those beings do not exist.

Rajesh, would modern idol-worshippers believe that the idol WAS alive? Or is the idol simply part of an invocational practice to honor a spirit or seek help/favor/information from it?

I don’t see where the Scriptures say that any of the Christian NT characters thought the idol was “alive.” Except I think some would categorize it as associated with (invocational of) a “living” spiritual being.

Isaiah and Jeremiah emphasize the non-being aspect of the idols. The pagans thought the idols represented real gods, real spiritual beings. Those gods were like Santa, they didn’t really exist. The idols were just blocks of wood with no living god behind them. I feel like I agree with you here.

…

When I say “real” I mean a living god, i.e., Santa and Dagon are real if they are actual beings that exist.

I’m not sure why you chose Santa, but I don’t think it’s helpful. I have a lot of trouble with the idea that Santa and Dagon belong in a similar category or have equivalent levels of “existence,” especially in terms of “Is this a real idol/demon or is it associated with a real idol/demon?” Especially with Santa being a fictionalized version of a real saint.

[Dan Miller]

Maybe this is where we keep getting tripped up. You mean real in that it’s legitimately the type of thing God prohibits. That’s not what I mean by real. When I say “real” I mean a living god, i.e., Santa and Dagon are real if they are actual beings that exist. Pagans think that Santa and Dagon are actual beings that exist. Christians, Paul, Isaiah, Jeremiah should all disagree – those entities are just made up, those beings do not exist.

Rajesh, would modern idol-worshippers believe that the idol WAS alive? Or is the idol simply part of an invocational practice to honor a spirit or seek help/favor/information from it?

[RajeshG]

Isaiah 19 is striking in what it teaches about the effects of idolatry, occult practices, and divine judgment with a perverse spirit:

Isaiah 19:3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.

Isaiah 19:14 The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.

First, because of God’s judgment on the counsel of the idolatrous Egyptians (cf. Is. 19:1), they resort to idols and to various occult practices (Is. 19:3).

Second, God judges them by mingling a perverse spirit among them (Is. 19:14a). It is unclear whether this means that He employs an actual demon to judge them or that He judges them in some other unstated manner so that they become perverse in their spirits.

Because of their extensive seeking of occult practitioners and their occult practices, understanding “the perverse spirit” that God mingles in their midst as a demon is entirely legitimate. We, however, cannot be completely certain that the verse speaks of the work of an actual demon.

Third, God’s judgment on them through that perverse spirit causes the Egyptians to err in everything that they do (Is. 19:14b). He thus judges them that they become so debilitated and incapacitated that they are not able to do any work properly.

Fourth, the judgment with a perverse spirit causes them to become like a drunken man who staggers in his vomit (Is. 19:14c). Such a person is obviously incapable of doing any work properly and certainly cannot do anything that pleases God.

Application

Clearly, this passage teaches us of the fearful realities of the judgment that God inflicts on some people who are idolatrous and participate in various occult practices. Undoubtedly, God intends that this revelation would serve as a stern warning to us not to have anything to do with idolatry and the occult.

[Dan Miller] I’m not sure why you chose Santa, but I don’t think it’s helpful. I have a lot of trouble with the idea that Santa and Dagon belong in a similar category or have equivalent levels of “existence,” especially in terms of “Is this a real idol/demon or is it associated with a real idol/demon?” Especially with Santa being a fictionalized version of a real saint.

It seems that we have been struggling in our attempts to explain what we mean by “real” and “nothing” and so it was an attempt to explain what I mean. I”m keying in on the fictional aspect of Santa, and I chose him because people display lighted plastic Santa statues during Christmas time. We have both an image and a so-called being that the image represents. All I’m saying is that Santa is fictional (he is not real), he only exists in the imagination of people, but some people think he really does exist (he is real to them). That’s how I view Dagan and Baal and these other so-called deities. I think that is one of the things that Isaiah and Jeremiah are getting at with their characterizations of idols, and I think that is what Paul is agreeing with in 8:4.

But like I suggested in an earlier post, I don’t think you are willing or able to concede this aspect of idolatry. To you they are demonic false gods that people really worship and that makes them real no matter what I say. I see both aspects (fictional/nothing/non-real part and the demonic/false worship part) and I’ve been trying to get you to see both aspects, but I don’t think I can take you across the rubicon. That’s OK. It just means we have slightly different views on the passage.

Thanks so much for the personal note. In the midst of this discussion, we must give thanks to God who called you and brought you to Him! Truly, “But if anyone loves God, he is known by God” belongs front and center in this discussion.

[AndyE]…

But like I suggested in an earlier post, I don’t think you are willing or able to concede this aspect of idolatry. To you they are demonic false gods that people really worship and that makes them real no matter what I say. I see both aspects (fictional/nothing/non-real part and the demonic/false worship part) and I’ve been trying to get you to see both aspects, but I don’t think I can take you across the rubicon. That’s OK. It just means we have slightly different views on the passage.

Yeah, I think this is true.

Here’s my bias: I don’t see anything “bad” about being called “weak.” To me it is simply descriptive of someone who cannot do something. Or who lacks the belief that he can do something. Well, some things are sin and we shouldn’t believe we can do them.

I think your bias is that you see the eaters called knowledgable and [not weak] and having a right and you see correctness implied there. And that correctness must be preserved, even when they are corrected.

So I think we agree:

The weak were actually right about the question, “Should we believe that we can eat in the temple?”

And the non-weak (the ch8 temple-eaters) were wrong about that same question.

And we disagree:

Dan: The weak were right for the right reason: Idol-food was “really offered to an idol,” as they said.

Andy: The weak were right for the wrong reason. i.e., they thought the idol was “alive.”

And we disagree:

Dan: The temple-eaters were wrong in knowledge and practical decision: Idol-food was “really offered to an idol,” as they denied.

Andy: The temple-eaters were wrong, even though they correctly realized that the idol was not “alive.”

[Dan Miller]

Thanks so much for the personal note. In the midst of this discussion, we must give thanks to God who called you and brought you to Him! Truly, “But if anyone loves God, he is known by God” belongs front and center in this discussion.

I have continued to study this passage and am convinced that it is a vital passage for believers to study. The complexities of the passage make it a very challenging passage, but its length and obvious importance show that we must make efforts to profit fully from it.
I find the following comparison to be intriguing:
1 Corinthians 10:7 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.
1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Idolatrous eating (10:7) — eating to the glory of God (10:31)

Idolatrous drinking (10:7) — drinking to the glory of God (10:31)

Idolatrous playing (10:7) — whatever you do, do to the glory of God (10:31)

Being idolaters (10:7) — doing all to the glory of God (10:31)

One practical application of this passage for modern believers: much of the hair in wigs today comes from hair actually sacrificed to idols. Should believers use this hair?

[josh p]

One practical application of this passage for modern believers: much of the hair in wigs today comes from hair actually sacrificed to idols. Should believers use this hair?

I have never heard anything about this. Do you have some sources for more information about this statement: “Much of the hair in wigs today comes from hair actually sacrificed to idols”?

Tonsuring is also a religious ceremony in Hindu religion. According to the rules of the Vedas, the Chudakarana (tonsuring of hair) should be performed either in the first or the third year of the child. It is practiced even today in most Hindu communities. In Buddhism, tonsure is a part of the rite of becoming a monk. This involves shaving the head and face. This tonsure is renewed as often as required to keep the head cleanly shaven, and some Chinese Buddhist monks also have 6, 9, or 12 dots on the top of the head as a result of burning the shaven scalp with the tip of a smoking incense stick. In Islam, it is often customary for pilgrims on the Hajj to shave their heads before entering Mecca as a sign of their rejection of vanity and for cleanliness. Jain monks pluck their hair so as to keep their scalp bare and devoid of lice. They do not use blade or knife.

Tonsuring is a common ritual rite in the temple town of Tirupathi (South India) and daily both men and women tonsure in thousands. Hindu devotees offer their hair to Lord Balaji for favors received, to show gratitude and respect. Both men and women offer their hair. It is interesting to note that more than 1,500 women partake in the ceremony daily. Temple authorities sell the hair thus obtained. In 2007, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams sold human hair worth 450 million Indian rupees.[2] The long hair of women is more priced and used in making hair extensions and wigs. The tonsured hair from men is used to extract l-cysteine. It is a precursor in the food, pharmaceutical, and personal care industries. One of the largest applications is the production of flavors.[3]