Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism

[Dan Miller] 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!

First, Paul seems to agree and align himself with the knowledge of the strong. Verse 4 says, “we know that an idol has no real existence” (ESV) or “we know that an idol is nothing” (KJV). So, I don’t think the knowledge of the strong is wrong as much as it is incomplete – which aligns with what Paul says in verse 2 – “if anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.” What is incomplete is what he will explain in 10:14-22 regarding the real demonic influence and presence involved in the idol worship.

So, the incomplete knowledge of the strong makes them think they can eat meat offered to idols anywhere, including the pagan temple, but they are wrong (10:14-22). If you find out for sure that the meat was offered to idols – you can’t eat it anywhere, at home, at your unbeliever’s house, or in the temple complex. The incomplete knowledge of the weak makes them think they can’t eat meat potentially polluted by idol worship anywhere, including what they might buy at the meat market or in someone’s home, but they are wrong (10:23-27).

Here is my other sticking point – if the strong are completely wrong, I don’t understand the purpose of chapter 9, which is all about giving up legitimate rights. If eating meat could make my brother stumble, Paul says we need to be prepared to give up the legitimate exercise of our rights, for the spiritual well-being of our brother (8:13; this, BTW, is what Paul also addresses in Romans 14, so I do think there is a limited overlap right here). And then in 10:23-24, the strong may have to give up what is “lawful” if it is not helpful or edifying to one’s brother.

[AndyE] First, Paul seems to agree and align himself with the knowledge of the strong. Verse 4 says, … What is incomplete is what he will explain in 10:14-22 regarding the real demonic influence and presence involved in the idol worship.

Yes, there was something wrong with the strong’s knowledge, as you say (v2).

Many believe it was only that they were harming their brothers (corrected in 8:9-13).

I think it was corrected in 10:1-22.

Paul introduced ch10 by saying he was going to fix ἀγνοεῖν (lack of knowledge).

But the key for me is that as he completed his argument against eating in the temple, he connected that no-temple conclusion with an objection from a group who would want one idea confirmed: the idol is nothing, which was the key piece of ch8 knowledge. And Paul did not confirm it. He contradicted it. So the problem the strong have isn’t how they’re using their knowledge, it’s their basic underlying knowledge.

You’re right, though, that leaves the problem of Paul saying “we” know that…

Here’s what I think is going on in 8:1-6. Paul had used the phrase “an idol is nothing” in giving the Gospel to the Corinthians and they quoted his phrase back to him in a letter with their argument for eating in the temple. But they were misunderstanding what it means that idols (false gods) are nothing.

When God said, Thou shalt have no other gods, He did not mean that there were other gods like Him and we are supposed to avoid them. False gods are nothing compared to God. But idols are not “nothing” in the sense they don’t exist at all. False gods/spirits did do magical works in Egypt. God commanded that we are not to honor any false gods. That includes empty wooden homemade idols and demonic ones. They are “nothing” in the sense that they are not real rivals to God. And we must not treat them as such.

The Corinthians interpreted the “nothing” phrase to mean that they didn’t have any significant existence whatsoever. That was the linchpin of their knowledge. If you think about it, this never made sense. It would render “have no other gods” meaningless and impossible to disobey, like me forbidding my son to ride unicorns.

One more reason I think the weak were right:

To be weak is to be unable to do something. And to be strong is to be able to do something. His summary statement(v21) could not be more clear: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.” But in English we miss how Paul directly addressed the issue between the weak and the strong in Corinth. In Greek “can” (“able”) and “strong” are expressed the same way. “You cannot” in Greek reads “οὐ δύνασθε” (“not you are strong”). Verse 21 could be translated, “You are not strong to drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You are not strong to partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”

[AndyE] …The incomplete knowledge of the weak makes them think they can’t eat meat potentially polluted by idol worship anywhere, including what they might buy at the meat market or in someone’s home, but they are wrong (10:23-27).

When you talk about “incomplete knowledge of the weak,” I would challenge you to found that in the Text. Paul’s description of the key point of the weak’s thinking (8:7): they consider the idol to be real. They’re right. I don’t see anything else named as weak thinking.

[AndyE] Here is my other sticking point – if the strong are completely wrong, I don’t understand the purpose of chapter 9, which is all about giving up legitimate rights. If eating meat could make my brother stumble, Paul says we need to be prepared to give up the legitimate exercise of our rights, for the spiritual well-being of our brother (8:13; this, BTW, is what Paul also addresses in Romans 14, so I do think there is a limited overlap right here). And then in 10:23-24, the strong may have to give up what is “lawful” if it is not helpful or edifying to one’s brother.

Really good point.

Some do believe that “this right of yours” was sarcastic. I don’t agree. I’m with you that Paul considered the right of the strong to eat in the temple to be legitimate, in a sense.

An analogy would be if you have friends who are doing something as parents that you don’t believe is good parenting. You think they’re wrong, but also you know they have a right to do as they believe is best. So do they have a right to do that bad parenting thing? Yes and No.

I begin this next paragraph knowing that we have important pending discussions regarding Romans 14 that Lee tried to start. Sorry, Lee.

Paul had taught in Romans 14 that when people are disputing how to apply Biblical commands, “each should be fully persisted in his own mind.” If someone else has a different conclusion, don’t judge them. They honor the Lord by living out their conviction, even though it’s different. When people understand that, their concern is, “Wait a minute! Does that mean that everything is up to the individual conscience??!”

If someone says, “It’s fine for me to eat at Hooters cuz I don’t have eyes for anyone but my wife.” Or, “It’s fine for me to eat in the idol’s temple because I don’t really respect the idol anyway.” In those cases I’m supposed to just not confront them? This is the problem of the no-brainer and it’s something everyone has to deal with after understanding Romans 14. David Doran once said that Romans 14 tells us to let other Christians apply God’s Word differently unless their behavior shows that they are not applying it at all. While I think that’s a wise way to address this problem, it is subject to circular reasoning (it’s ok to judge when I think I should judge).

Copied conclusion from this chapter in my book:

1 Corinthians 8-10 represents Paul’s method of approaching brothers who were doing something that he believed was wrong for them to do, even when they had an argument for why it was permissible. Paul had a level of authority that none of us have, but he still was careful in how he addressed these Corinthian Christians about their behavior in the idol’s temple. We can distill some general guidelines for his approach:

STEP 1: Before you approach your brother, realize who is who: You are the weak brother. Your brother, who is doing the thing you think is wrong, is “strong.” Like Paul, you will be ending your argument with, “Not strong you are this to do” (normal English, “You can’t do this.”).

Saying your brother is “strong” does not mean he’s right. I know I’m up against a powerful tide of traditional thoughts about what “weak” and “strong” mean. Paul probably thought the conclusion that one could eat the sacrificial food in a pagan temple was frankly nuts, but he acknowledged that the temple-eaters had the “right” to do it because they had concluded they could. And each should be fully persuaded in his own mind.

What your brother is doing seems clearly sinful to you, so you could not do it without self-condemnation. You’re unable to do it. In Paul’s lingo, your conscience is “weak” because you can’t do it.

STEP 2: Understand the reasoning of your strong brother. Why does he think he can do the thing you oppose?

Paul clearly took the time to understand exactly why the strong had concluded they could eat. And he began by reflecting their reasoning back to them in his introduction of the issue.

STEP 3: Understand your own reasoning. What Bible principles do you think he is failing to apply? Does your brother understand these Bible principles?

STEP 4: Understand generally what most believers and unbelievers in his circle think about the issue. Are most Christians you know weak or strong on this?

Be careful not to gossip here. This isn’t an opportunity for you to bash the “ridiculous thinking” of this brother.

Think through how this brother’s liberty will affect his brothers who are weak.

Think through how this brother’s liberty will affect unbelievers who see him.

If you can’t honestly do some of this, then you have homework to do before you confront your brother. For instance, if you can’t explain the reasoning your brother uses to arrive at his liberty, then your first conversation with him should be more listening to his explanation of his understanding of relevant Bible principles and his reasoning for how he does or doesn’t apply them.

[Dan Miller]

Here’s what I think is going on in 8:1-6. Paul had used the phrase “an idol is nothing” in giving the Gospel to the Corinthians and they quoted his phrase back to him in a letter with their argument for eating in the temple. But they were misunderstanding what it means that idols (false gods) are nothing.

When God said, Thou shalt have no other gods, He did not mean that there were other gods like Him and we are supposed to avoid them. False gods are nothing compared to God. But idols are not “nothing” in the sense they don’t exist at all. False gods/spirits did do magical works in Egypt. God commanded that we are not to honor any false gods. That includes empty wooden homemade idols and demonic ones. They are “nothing” in the sense that they are not real rivals to God. And we must not treat them as such.

The Corinthians interpreted the “nothing” phrase to mean that they didn’t have any significant existence whatsoever. That was the linchpin of their knowledge. If you think about it, this never made sense. It would render “have no other gods” meaningless and impossible to disobey, like me forbidding my son to ride unicorns.

1 Corinthians 8:4 Περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς.

On this reading, “in the world” signifies that the idol in and of itself did not have any consequential existence in the world, that is, on the earth. As Paul makes clear later in 1 Cor. 10, however, there was a demonic reality involving supernatural evil beings that was very real about the idols.
Thoughts?

Paul deals with two issues regarding knowledge. First, is that your knowledge is never complete (8:2) – there are things you may not be aware of, like the demonic reality behind idol worship (which Paul deals with in ch 10). Second, even if your knowledge is correct, you still have to take care (8:9) that you don’t hurt a fellow believer whose knowledge (8:7, “not all possess this knowledge”) and conscience (8:7 “their conscience being weak”; 8:10 “if his conscience is weak”, 8:12 “wounding their conscience”) by exercising your liberty/right/freedom in a way that would embolden or strengthen him to partake.

In regard to the knowledge issue, the strong are both right and wrong because their knowledge is incomplete. They are right that an idol is nothing – it’s just a block of wood, it is just a carved stone, the so-called god does not actually exist — all that is true, and Paul agrees (“we know”). But they are wrong in that there is real demonic influence behind the idol worship, and that by eating in the temple dining room, or eat meat you know was offered to an idol, you will be fellowshipping with demons if you partake. The weak are also not thinking about the demonic influence behind the idol, but they think the idol IS something and believe the false god is real.

In chapter 10:23-30, Paul deals with both knowledge limitations. Verses 23-27 deals with the first limitation of knowledge (the limitation of the weak) – take care in exercising your rights/liberty/freedom based on your incomplete knowledge that you do things that help and edify your brother, seek his good above your good (23-24). This applies principles from both chapters 8 and 9. If your conscience is not bothered (29-30), then feel free to buy and eat meat from the market, and if served to you by your unsaved friend (25-27), if you can do this with without hurting your brother, and you have considered yourself (10:12). Verse 28 deals with the second knowledge limitation (the limitation of the strong) and applies 10:14-22 to the situation.

So, long and short, both strong and weak have incomplete knowledge (the knowledge discussion in 8:1-3 applies to all). The weak are weak because they cannot partake without violating their conscience.

Some do believe that “this right of yours” was sarcastic. I don’t agree. I’m with you that Paul considered the right of the strong to eat in the temple to be legitimate, in a sense.

Agree that it was not sarcastic, but disagree that Paul thought the right of the strong to eat in the temple was legit. In some ways, this particular point doesn’t matter that much because the practical place where we end up I think is basically the same. For me it is simply an issue of maintaining consistency within the passage across chapters 8-10.

Interesting, but I think that your conflating false gods with evil spirits as you do here is problematic.
Where does Scripture reveal that false gods/spirits did magical works in Egypt? Yes, the Egyptian magicians did demonic miracles, but is there any text that specifically states that false gods/spirits did those magical works?

I’m a little confused about how this would be conflation. I mean the demonic signs performed by the magicians were surely part of the call to worship/honor the false Egyptian gods, right? So evil purpose of the demon is to draw worship and honor away from God and to anything else (or anyone).

The Bible seems to depict two types of idols:

1- False gods that are empty (Isaiah 44:9-20).

2- False gods that are connected with demons.

I see no indication that discerning whether the false god had a demon behind it was an important step in deciding whether to have anything to do with it. Every idol should be treated as though it has a demon and should be rejected.

[Dan Miller]

Interesting, but I think that your conflating false gods with evil spirits as you do here is problematic.
Where does Scripture reveal that false gods/spirits did magical works in Egypt? Yes, the Egyptian magicians did demonic miracles, but is there any text that specifically states that false gods/spirits did those magical works?

I’m a little confused about how this would be conflation. I mean the demonic signs performed by the magicians were surely part of the call to worship/honor the false Egyptian gods, right? So evil purpose of the demon is to draw worship and honor away from God and to anything else (or anyone).

The Bible seems to depict two types of idols:

1- False gods that are empty (Isaiah 44:9-20).

2- False gods that are connected with demons.

I see no indication that discerning whether the false god had a demon behind it was an important step in deciding whether to have anything to do with it. Every idol should be treated as though it has a demon and should be rejected.

In regard to the knowledge issue, the strong are both right and wrong because their knowledge is incomplete. They are right that an idol is nothing – it’s just a block of wood, it is just a carved stone, the so-called god does not actually exist — all that is true, and Paul agrees (“we know”). But they are wrong in that there is real demonic influence behind the idol worship, and that by eating in the temple dining room, or eat meat you know was offered to an idol, you will be fellowshipping with demons if you partake. The weak are also not thinking about the demonic influence behind the idol, but they think the idol IS something and believe the false god is real.

I understand what you’re saying. But how do you see this as consistent with Paul’s thoughts in v19 about his readers?

(I wrote a reply, but deleted it - I’m just repeating myself.)

I think we to clarify what is meant by “false god” and “real” in your last sentence.

I see no indication that discerning whether the false god had a demon behind it was ever an important step in deciding whether to have anything to do with it.

I mean, Achan didn’t get get out of his mess by saying, “Don’t worry - it’s not real. Idols are nothing!” And Joshua, in addressing Achan’s sin, never said, “The problem here is not that you took an idol. Idols are nothing. The problem is that you took one with a demon.”

[Dan Miller]

In regard to the knowledge issue, the strong are both right and wrong because their knowledge is incomplete. They are right that an idol is nothing – it’s just a block of wood, it is just a carved stone, the so-called god does not actually exist — all that is true, and Paul agrees (“we know”). But they are wrong in that there is real demonic influence behind the idol worship, and that by eating in the temple dining room, or eat meat you know was offered to an idol, you will be fellowshipping with demons if you partake. The weak are also not thinking about the demonic influence behind the idol, but they think the idol IS something and believe the false god is real.

I understand what you’re saying. But how do you see this as consistent with Paul’s thoughts in v19 about his readers?

(I wrote a reply, but deleted it - I’m just repeating myself.)

I think we to clarify what is meant by “false god” and “real” in your last sentence.

I see no indication that discerning whether the false god had a demon behind it was ever an important step in deciding whether to have anything to do with it.

I mean, Achan didn’t get get out of his mess by saying, “Don’t worry - it’s not real. Idols are nothing!” And Joshua, in addressing Achan’s sin, never said, “The problem here is not that you took an idol. Idols are nothing. The problem is that you took one with a demon.”

[Dan Miller]

I understand what you’re saying. But how do you see this as consistent with Paul’s thoughts in v19 about his readers?

(I wrote a reply, but deleted it - I’m just repeating myself.)

I think we to clarify what is meant by “false god” and “real” in your last sentence.

I see no indication that discerning whether the false god had a demon behind it was ever an important step in deciding whether to have anything to do with it.

None of the gods of Canaan or Egypt or Rome or Corinth are real beings. They are simply made up from human imagination. They have ears but can’t hear and eyes but can’t see. They have to be carried about because they can’t walk and there is no reason to be afraid of them because they can’t do anything, for evil or for good (cf., Jer 10:3-5).

But when man forsakes the God who made him and begins to worship something other than the one true and living God, exchanging the glory of God for images/idols of man’s creation or animals or objects of God’s creation…well, there is evidently demonic influence behind that. It is that demonic influence that is real and is always there whenever idolatry is there.

Let’s say you are exploring an exotic jungle somewhere and come across a carved monkey. You think it looks cool and bring it home to display, as a trinket from your travel and exploration. You don’t know anything about it at all, other than what I just said. Now suppose that was actually a carved monkey god idol you found. Do you now have a demon in your home? I don’t think so. It’s nothing, just a carved monkey. The fact that someone may have worshipped it over a hundred years ago, is of no importance. Now if you then read National Geographic and find out it was a carved monkey god…now what? Do you have to toss it? Is it still nothing? To be honest, I’m not 100% sure. I wouldn’t have a buddha figurine in my house, but having said that, I think we do get rice sometimes that has a buddha as part of the company logo on it.

I mean, Achan didn’t get get out of his mess by saying, “Don’t worry - it’s not real. Idols are nothing!” And Joshua, in addressing Achan’s sin, never said, “The problem here is not that you took an idol. Idols are nothing. The problem is that you took one with a demon.”

[AndyE]

Let’s say you are exploring an exotic jungle somewhere and come across a carved monkey. You think it looks cool and bring it home to display, as a trinket from your travel and exploration. You don’t know anything about it at all, other than what I just said. Now suppose that was actually a carved monkey god idol you found. Do you now have a demon in your home? I don’t think so. It’s nothing, just a carved monkey. The fact that someone may have worshipped it over a hundred years ago, is of no importance. Now if you then read National Geographic and find out it was a carved monkey god…now what? Do you have to toss it? Is it still nothing? To be honest, I’m not 100% sure. I wouldn’t have a buddha figurine in my house, but having said that, I think we do get rice sometimes that has a buddha as part of the company logo on it.

[RajeshG] There are many Scripture passages that speak of godly believers who in obedience to God destroyed idols. On that basis, once you know that it was a physical object that has been worshiped as a false god, you are obligated at least to remove it completely from your life and even to destroy it if you have the ability and authority to do so.

I can think of some of these examples, and that is helpful. All of the examples I can think of, though, are idols that are actively being worshiped. Are there any examples that fit my hypothetical more closely? The person doesn’t know it was an idol and that idol is no longer actively being worshipped as an idol. Having thought about this more since my last posting, budda is still actively being worshipped in the world and so I certainly wouldn’t want any figurines in my home that would look like I was condoning that or ignoring that. There are active demonic powers at work in the worship of budda.

The reason for exploring the carved monkey example is to see what Paul actually means by saying an idol is nothing. In this case no one is actively worshiping it — the people who did it in the past are long gone. My sole reason for having it would be to remind me of my trip. If I found out it was at one time used as an idol, I could see my conscience rejecting it as a former rival to God and not wanting anything in my house like that. But on the other hand, people have worshiped all sorts of animals and that doesn’t prohibit me (I’m fairly certain) from owning any of those types of animals. So, just throwing this out there for discussion.

[AndyE]

RajeshG wrote:There are many Scripture passages that speak of godly believers who in obedience to God destroyed idols. On that basis, once you know that it was a physical object that has been worshiped as a false god, you are obligated at least to remove it completely from your life and even to destroy it if you have the ability and authority to do so.

I can think of some of these examples, and that is helpful. All of the examples I can think of, though, are idols that are actively being worshiped. Are there any examples that fit my hypothetical more closely? The person doesn’t know it was an idol and that idol is no longer actively being worshipped as an idol. Having thought about this more since my last posting, budda is still actively being worshipped in the world and so I certainly wouldn’t want any figurines in my home that would look like I was condoning that or ignoring that. There are active demonic powers at work in the worship of budda.

The reason for exploring the carved monkey example is to see what Paul actually means by saying an idol is nothing. In this case no one is actively worshiping it — the people who did it in the past are long gone. My sole reason for having it would be to remind me of my trip. If I found out it was at one time used as an idol, I could see my conscience rejecting it as a former rival to God and not wanting anything in my house like that. But on the other hand, people have worshiped all sorts of animals and that doesn’t prohibit me (I’m fairly certain) from owning any of those types of animals. So, just throwing this out there for discussion.

Several things to consider. First, the ultimate consideration concerning a manmade physical object of worship that has been worshiped is not whether it is continuing to be actively worshiped or that there are people still alive who did so. God is the One against whom all such offenses are committed, and He remembers and never forgets what wicked purposes such objects have been used for regardless of whether they are still actively being used for those idolatrous purposes or not.
Second, when God commanded the Israelites to destroy all the objects of idolatrous worship in their conquest of Canaan, He did not stipulate that they were only to do so with those objects that they could determine were still in active use. His demands were categorical concerning the destruction of all those vile objects.
Third, concerning idols that were/are made in the likeness of things that God directly created, encountering such idols does not mean that those animals themselves now somehow become off-limits for believers. Recall that after the Golden Calf Incident, the Israelites continued to own calves and use them in their worship.
Fourth, concerning your hypothetical monkey-like object example, here’s a hypothetical that I created elsewhere that may help answer some of your questions:

On the Evil Supernatural Origins of Some Human “Creativity”

Suppose that a group of evil humans in a remote land gets together and smokes some psychedelic substances. Doing so puts them all into a state of altered consciousness. While in that state, they all suddenly see a towering being of light appear to them.

This being proceeds to tell them that he is the true god and that there is no other god besides him. The being is frog-like in appearance. The spirit being commands the men to make an image of itself and worship that image.

The being orders them to make the image to have three heads even though it only has one head. The men do so and originate an entire religion around the worship of their three-headed frog-like god.

Christian Refusal to Believe What Happened

Some Christians later come to the remote area where these idolaters live and see the idol. The Christians conclude that the people just used their imagination to make an idol that was somewhat like real frogs that they had seen somewhere in their land.

When they try to evangelize some of the idolaters, the Christians refuse to believe what the idolaters tell them had happened to guide them to make the idol. They reject their testimony that they really had seen a spirit being that was frog-like in appearance and that had ordered them to make that idol.

Would such Christians be right or wrong? According to Scripture, there are demons who are frog-like in appearance:

Revelation 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Therefore, Christians who would refuse to believe such a testimony— if it were ever to be given to them—would actually be wrong in thinking that demons cannot appear to humans to guide the humans to engage in any such kind of creative activity that is of demonic origin.

In my hypothetical, I have laid out a very viable scenario where evil humans engage in creative activity under demonic influence to make an object of ungodly worship that is evil not just because it is made in the image of an animal that God created but also because it is made in the image of demons.
Similarly, the monkey-like object in your scenario could easily be in imitation of a monkey-like demon the existence of which we are not told about one way or another in Scripture.
For these reasons and others, the right approach is categorical rejection of all objects of idolatrous worship.

RajeshG:

Dan Miller wrote:

I mean, Achan didn’t get get out of his mess by saying, “Don’t worry - it’s not real. Idols are nothing!” And Joshua, in addressing Achan’s sin, never said, “The problem here is not that you took an idol. Idols are nothing. The problem is that you took one with a demon.”

The account about Achan does not mention anything about his taking an idol:

Joshua 7:21 When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.

Yep - you’re right - weird. Poor memory. I don’t know why I thought that he took an idol.

–

Still, this that you wrote is more supportive of what I am thinking:

RajeshG: Second, when God commanded the Israelites to destroy all the objects of idolatrous worship in their conquest of Canaan, He did not stipulate that they were only to do so with those objects that they could determine were still in active use. His demands were categorical concerning the destruction of all those vile objects.

–-

To Andy’s story about a carved monkey, I would not want that monkey. Kinda like I would not want a Nazi artifact with a swastika. I hate what it stood for and I wouldn’t keep it.

Let’s say you do not consider the monkey idolatrous and you decide to keep it. Then you have an office dinner party and one of guests says, “You know, I’m an African art dealer. This monkey you have is a such-and-such fertility god. The such-and-such tribe believes that if you put the banana leaves in here and smoke them, as the smoke comes out this hole in his belly it smokes a piece of meat held in his hands. And if you that meat, you will be blessed with fertility. And it work, too. I used to have one and I know a few infertile couples who used it to get pregnant.”

I think, at that point, the monkey goes in the fire. I don’t care particularly whether there’s demonic power that makes it work or not.

-

So, to define “we know that and idol is nothing in the world.”

Isaiah 44:9-10 All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. 10 Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing?

Here the makers of idols are called nothing. BUT those makers did exist! They were making idols that existed. But they and their idols were “nothing.”

Nothing could be seen to imply not spiritually active (demonic). But that did NOT make those idols acceptable. Even “nothing” idols were STILL to be rejected!

I feel like this discussion was a bit like not being able to see the forest for all the trees that were in the way. I think maybe we’re getting back on track.

Things on which I think we mostly agree:

• I Cor. 8-10 is instruction on how to biblically “flee from idolatry”
  • By idolatry it is referencing the culturally practiced, generally poly-theistic, religiosity that defines practically every culture, society, sub-culture in the world
    • This is the idolatry that defines people groups—“…And …they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men….”“Great is Diana of the Ephesians”; “…at Athens…the city wholly given to idolatry…”
  • It is not referencing the common cop-out of “anything can become an idol so there are no idols nor pollutions from which to conscientiously abstain” mantra that so permeates American churches
• All idolatry creates its own idols—the “instruments and inventions” that enable the functional worship of the object idolized
  • These instruments and inventions include but are not necessarily limited to
    • dedicated temples or other designated geographic areas
    • images
    • meta-physical entities (spirit beings […worshipping of angels…]; “…the internet is my religion…”)
    • revered humans (“Caesar is lord!)
    • Created objects (“…If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; And my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand…” [Job 31:26-27] )
  • The idols morph and change geographically, demographically, and from generation to generation
    • There is no single or conglomerate of definitive idols
• Idolatry does not only create a variety of idols it also incorporates “pollutions of idols” that infect the idolatrous culture at the basest level
  • “pollutions of idols” are those objects and activities (actions) that normalize that idolatry to society and proselytize non-practitioners into acceptance and identification. They generally extend even to the level of …
    • commerce—”…sold in the shambles…”
    • customs—”...If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go…”
  • pollutions represent the proximity and participation illustrated in Numbers 25:2 that was the formula Balaam counseled Balak to utilize as referred to in Num. 31:16. It is also directly referenced in I Cor. 10
  • It is the cultural identification and utilization of these objects and/or activities that gives them their identity as idolatrous in nature
• “Meat” and sitting “at meat in the idols temple” were the first specifically identified objects and/or activities that absolutely illustrated the level at which idolatry must be addressed in order to be obedient to the NT directive “flee from idolatry”
• To “flee from idolatry” you must “guard yourself from idols” and “abstain from pollutions of idols”.

First Cor. 8-10 does not direct believers to reject idols themselves in the sense of seeking their destruction. Rather, it forbids Christians’ partaking of things that have been offered to idols and on forbidding Christians’ “playing” in the manner that idolaters have done and still do in their idolatrous worship.
Unlike the Israelites who had national responsibilities toward God to rid their land of idols, believers in the early Church did not have and believers today do not have such national obligations and rarely have the necessary authority to go around destroying idols, temples, etc. They must, however, not be idolaters (1 Cor. 10:7), they must flee idolatry (1 Cor. 10:14), and they must not have fellowship with demons (1 Cor. 10:20).