Speaking of meat...Daniel's refusal to eat it.....for fear of idolatry?

[FSSL]

?Anything but the Bible.? That?s Hoopers go-to


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

...
Not that I totally disagree with <some of> your points, but if you don't mind, develop what you mean here a bit more.  How is it that you come to the conclusion that meat will "inevitably" lead one back into idolatry?

I Cor. 10: 7-11 "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. ... Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

Referencing the narratives of Exodus 32:6 FF and Num. 25:1-3 Paul explains how the matter of meat will inevitably lead to idolatry.  Particularly in Numbers where the Moabites were counseled by Balaam (31:16) to entice the Israelites into idolatry and immorality ("...they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods [proximity]: and the people did eat [participation], and bowed down to their gods [practice] {25:2}") it is clear that the participation at the "meat" level results in practice as a general rule.

In case we miss that Paul continues in 10:18-21 with the truth laid down in chap 9 (participation is unity) when he says "...Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?  What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

There are any number of other passages that illustrate the same thing. The last 2 verses of Dt. 7 illustrate clearly: "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. 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."  Paul restates in II Cor. 6:14-18 "...And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."

Paul is just coloring in the sketch given by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which basically stated that you didn't have to practice cultural Judaism to be saved, but you couldn't retain your pagan identity either and be in fellowship with the body of Christ. Therefore some "necessary things" were given them to practice--"...abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well (15:28-29)."

I may be misunderstanding your point, if so, forgive me, but in the OT passages cited the "meat" was a byproduct of a people that already had gone whoring after other gods.  As such, the mention of "meat" is more an accompaniment of idolatry, not a factor of "inevitability".  More to my point, Daniel's refusal to eat could have been a matter of "separation" in the sense of not having anything to do with a practice that was an abomination and would cause him to appear to capitulate to that practice, but at the end of the day he could have eaten the meat and not been "fellowshipping" with belial because the meat is not intrinsically evil.

 

[Hooper]

...
Not that I totally disagree with <some of> your points, but if you don't mind, develop what you mean here a bit more.  How is it that you come to the conclusion that meat will "inevitably" lead one back into idolatry?

I Cor. 10: 7-11 "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. ... Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

Referencing the narratives of Exodus 32:6 FF and Num. 25:1-3 Paul explains how the matter of meat will inevitably lead to idolatry.  Particularly in Numbers where the Moabites were counseled by Balaam (31:16) to entice the Israelites into idolatry and immorality ("...they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods [proximity]: and the people did eat [participation], and bowed down to their gods [practice] {25:2}") it is clear that the participation at the "meat" level results in practice as a general rule.

In case we miss that Paul continues in 10:18-21 with the truth laid down in chap 9 (participation is unity) when he says "...Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?  What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

There are any number of other passages that illustrate the same thing. The last 2 verses of Dt. 7 illustrate clearly: "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. 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."  Paul restates in II Cor. 6:14-18 "...And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."

Paul is just coloring in the sketch given by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which basically stated that you didn't have to practice cultural Judaism to be saved, but you couldn't retain your pagan identity either and be in fellowship with the body of Christ. Therefore some "necessary things" were given them to practice--"...abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well (15:28-29)."

I may be misunderstanding your point, if so, forgive me, but in the OT passages cited the "meat" was a byproduct of a people that already had gone whoring after other gods.  As such, the mention of "meat" is more an accompaniment of idolatry, not a factor of "inevitability".  More to my point, Daniel's refusal to eat could have been a matter of "separation" in the sense of not having anything to do with a practice that was an abomination and would cause him to appear to capitulate to that practice, but at the end of the day he could have eaten the meat and not been "fellowshipping" with belial because the meat is not intrinsically evil.

Then why not mention that he ate his own meat? He goes to the trouble of telling us what he ate instead. It's a fair assumption to say that his refusal included a desire not to eat animal flesh.  Then it goes on to say how much healthier he appeared eating pulse.

 

[Anchor]

I may be misunderstanding your point, if so, forgive me, but in the OT passages cited the "meat" was a byproduct of a people that already had gone whoring after other gods.  As such, the mention of "meat" is more an accompaniment of idolatry, not a factor of "inevitability".  More to my point, Daniel's refusal to eat could have been a matter of "separation" in the sense of not having anything to do with a practice that was an abomination and would cause him to appear to capitulate to that practice, but at the end of the day he could have eaten the meat and not been "fellowshipping" with belial because the meat is not intrinsically evil.

Specifically the counsel of Balaam was for Moab to seduce the children of Israel into their idolatry and inter-marriage.  This was done through the progression given in Num. 25. It worked. 

Scripture is consistent that the path to idolatry for a called out people is rarely through the front door but rather through peripheral means--meat; money; marriage, etc. And the results of an individual or society which follows after these peripheral seductions is consistently (inevitably?) the same--pervasive idolatry and its conjoined twin, immorality.  Hence the imperative of Acts 15 and other places warning against participation in the 3 hallmarks of pagan practice--pollutions of idols; immorality; and inhumanity/barbarity (blood).

The children of Israel were not practicing idolatry when they arrived at Peor, but they did when they succumbed to the enticement of the Moabites when "...they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods."

There are two ways an inanimate object such as meat can become a moral entity: when it is assigned a moral stigma by God (such as clean and unclean animals) or when it is given moral significance through its purpose (meat offered to idols; the accursed thing of Jericho or Dt. 7, etc.).  Moral significance assigned by God to meat was rescinded in Acts 10. Moral significance through purpose continues, though the objects of that moral significance change as the idolatry changes from culture to culture and generation to generation.

There is nothing in the account of Daniel that references meat offered to idols as being the issue.  That so much is given about Daniel's heritage--"...children of Israel...of the king's seed...of the princes...."--indicates the defilement was about his Jewish identity.  Whether of an unclean animal or a clean animal handled in a non-kosher manner, the partaking of the meat would have been defiling, and "Daniel purposed in his heart not to defile himself with...the king's meat...."  There is no reason to surmise other factors that the text does not absolutely support.

 

[brianb]

You're free to disagree.

You're free to justify your choice of verses by showing the connection. Any particular reason you decline to do so, apart from obfuscating the fact that you pulled them out of your rear?

I would but would do so from the The gospel of the holy twelve and the Clementine Homilies. There's only one here that may acknowledge their validity.  I have already mentioned other examples found in the Bible .  The Clementine homilies show a Peter that did not eat meat but  bread and olives.  Peter tells Clement that people were changing his letters while he was still alive.  This fits well with what we know Constantine was up to when he made the Bible.  Pagan sun worship  has been much more prevalent than Christians give it credit for.

Peter had an interesting occupation if all he ate was bread and olives instead of fish. Maybe he did during the time he knew Clement but not in his early life. I've read the text and it seems he was saying that he was living a kind of simple frugal life with little food and clothing. He also says the only clothes he has are the ones he was wearing not that he was saying eating meat was wrong. 

 

[Hooper]

You're free to disagree.

You're free to justify your choice of verses by showing the connection. Any particular reason you decline to do so, apart from obfuscating the fact that you pulled them out of your rear?

I would but would do so from the The gospel of the holy twelve and the Clementine Homilies. There's only one here that may acknowledge their validity.  I have already mentioned other examples found in the Bible .  The Clementine homilies show a Peter that did not eat meat but  bread and olives.  Peter tells Clement that people were changing his letters while he was still alive.  This fits well with what we know Constantine was up to when he made the Bible.  Pagan sun worship  has been much more prevalent than Christians give it credit for.

Peter had an interesting occupation if all he ate was bread and olives instead of fish. Maybe he did during the time he knew Clement but not in his early life. I've read the text and it seems he was saying that he was living a kind of simple frugal life with little food and clothing. He also says the only clothes he has are the ones he was wearing not that he was saying eating meat was wrong.

Peter was likely a fisherman  before he meet Christ.

http://www.oocities.org/ebionite23/page70.html

 

[ALAYMAN]

Peter was likely a fisherman  before he meet Christ.

http://www.oocities.org/ebionite23/page70.html

So Peter, a law-keeping Jew, worked an occupation that provided sinful flesh for consumption to other non-flesh eating Jews?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Specifically the counsel of Balaam was for Moab to seduce the children of Israel into their idolatry and inter-marriage.  This was done through the progression given in Num. 25. It worked. 

Scripture is consistent that the path to idolatry for a called out people is rarely through the front door but rather through peripheral means--meat; money; marriage, etc. And the results of an individual or society which follows after these peripheral seductions is consistently (inevitably?) the same--pervasive idolatry and its conjoined twin, immorality.  Hence the imperative of Acts 15 and other places warning against participation in the 3 hallmarks of pagan practice--pollutions of idols; immorality; and inhumanity/barbarity (blood).

The children of Israel were not practicing idolatry when they arrived at Peor, but they did when they succumbed to the enticement of the Moabites when "...they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods."

There are two ways an inanimate object such as meat can become a moral entity: when it is assigned a moral stigma by God (such as clean and unclean animals) or when it is given moral significance through its purpose (meat offered to idols; the accursed thing of Jericho or Dt. 7, etc.).  Moral significance assigned by God to meat was rescinded in Acts 10. Moral significance through purpose continues, though the objects of that moral significance change as the idolatry changes from culture to culture and generation to generation.

There is nothing in the account of Daniel that references meat offered to idols as being the issue.  That so much is given about Daniel's heritage--"...children of Israel...of the king's seed...of the princes...."--indicates the defilement was about his Jewish identity.  Whether of an unclean animal or a clean animal handled in a non-kosher manner, the partaking of the meat would have been defiling, and "Daniel purposed in his heart not to defile himself with...the king's meat...."  There is no reason to surmise other factors that the text does not absolutely support.

I do appreciate several of your insights and conclusions here, particularly that idolatry often doesn't come through the front door but more subtly through the back. 

Having said that, merely because a society and culture uses things that are by nature or intrinsically amoral (not referring to things like dietary restrictions here obviously) does not mean that a person who is entangled with that culture will succumb to those influences.  Granted, it may not be wise or prudent to "take fire into your bosom", but that again brings us back to the matter of conscience.  If a person is able to partake of something that is not sinful by nature without sinning himself, nor causing others about him to stumble, then we ought to grant him/her liberty to make that choice.

 

[Anchor]

...
Having said that, merely because a society and culture uses things that are by nature or intrinsically immoral (not referring to things like dietary restrictions here obviously) does not mean that a person who is entangled with that culture will succumb to those influences.  Granted, it may not be wise or prudent to "take fire into your bosom", but that again brings us back to the matter of conscience. If a person is able to partake of something that is not sinful by nature without sinning himself, nor causing others about him to stumble, then we ought to grant him/her liberty to make that choice.

As I said earlier Paul is, in I Cor. 8-10, coloring in the sketch given by the elders in Jerusalem concerning circumcision and pagan practices which were determined to be "necessary things [Acts 15]" and which were subsequently  delivered by letter and chosen messenger to all the churches scattered abroad. Corinth was such a church, although founded after the council in Jerusalem.  However, in Corinth the forbidden pagan practices of "pollutions of idols" and "fornication"[/color] had interwoven themselves into the daily commerce, custom, and culture of the city so that it was difficult to determine where idolatry ended and realistic daily living within the Corinthian society began.  The church had a questions about how to be obedient (I Cor. 7:1 and, evidently, 8:1) and Paul was answering their questions.

In chap 6 Paul has already pre-answered the question on fornication when he categorically states in 6:18--"Flee fornication." In chap 7 he tells them how: "...to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife...." IOW, get married.  Simple. Now surely we all know that there are other steps besides getting married that can and should be incorporated into our daily habits to help us "flee" the trap of immorality. The principle presented is too big to be ignored.  Even if it is not what is best for you at this given time ("...it is good for a man not to touch a woman...this is good for the present distress...[I cor. 7:2 & 26]"), still do, or don't do as the case may be, what will enable you to fulfill the command to "flee fornication".

"Pollutions of idols" (in this specific case meat offered to idols) is not as simple.  It is simply too prevalent and too entwined in the everyday living . Yet Paul still gives this the same brief, thorough  command as he did immorality--" flee from idolatry [I Co10:14]".

So, if you follow through on his reasoning he comes to some practical conclusions on how to function in Corinthian society and still "flee from idolatry".  He does this primarily in incorporating the principles of the OT law (particularly chap 9 and 10) into the application towards these specific things.

Conclusions:
1: Don't participate in the temple (8:10-12)
2: Know that any level of tolerance ("fellowship") for/with idolatry is participation in idolatry (10:20-22)
3: When the pollutions of idols have assimilated into basic commerce ("Whatsoever is sold in the shambles...") or custom ("...any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go...") assume only commerce and custom--"...eat, asking no question..."
4: When you have knowledge, don't eat (10:28) for everybody's sake--the unbeliever, yourself, other believers, Jews, etc. (10:32)

Pollutions change from generation to generation and culture to culture.  The principles that Paul espouses don't.  So it is not a matter of "If a person is able to partake of something that is not sinful by nature without sinning himself, nor causing others about him to stumble, then we ought to grant him/her liberty to make that choice."  It is matter of obedience--can I participate in this and still flee idolatry?  The typical reaction is "I can, and I should, because it is not wrong of itself!" The biblical reaction should be "...let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he falll...ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

 

[Anchor]

Sorry about all the red--the edit feature went berserk.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Sorry about all the red--the edit feature went berserk.

lol, one apology for another.  My first sentence you quoted most recently should have read "amoral" (now edited to reflect that intention) and not "immoral".  Mea culpa.

I'll try to respond to your red-letter post later (but probably will be tomorrow.

 

[T-Bone]

Sorry about all the red--the edit feature went berserk.

Don't apologize...some on this forum only read and believe what's written in red!  ;D

 

[Route_70]

Sorry about all the red--the edit feature went berserk.

Don't apologize...some on this forum only read and believe what's written in red!  ;D

Regarding the eating of meat, a porterhouse t-bone steak is my favorite!

 

[T-Bone]

Sorry about all the red--the edit feature went berserk.

Don't apologize...some on this forum only read and believe what's written in red!  ;D

Regarding the eating of meat, a porterhouse t-bone steak is my favorite!

I like the Ribeye.

 

[ALAYMAN]

....
Conclusions:
1: Don't participate in the temple (8:10-12)
2: Know that any level of tolerance ("fellowship") for/with idolatry is participation in idolatry (10:20-22)
3: When the pollutions of idols have assimilated into basic commerce ("Whatsoever is sold in the shambles...") or custom ("...any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go...") assume only commerce and custom--"...eat, asking no question..."
4: When you have knowledge, don't eat (10:28) for everybody's sake--the unbeliever, yourself, other believers, Jews, etc. (10:32)

Pollutions change from generation to generation and culture to culture.  The principles that Paul espouses don't.  So it is not a matter of "If a person is able to partake of something that is not sinful by nature without sinning himself, nor causing others about him to stumble, then we ought to grant him/her liberty to make that choice."  It is matter of obedience--can I participate in this and still flee idolatry?  The typical reaction is "I can, and I should, because it is not wrong of itself!" The biblical reaction should be "...let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he falll...ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

Well, I want to tell you that this thread has provoked me to considerations I had long not considered, ones that I thought I had settled, and ones that have been interesting and satisfying to contemplate in the Scriptures.  So thank you for that.  I am going to take more time to ponder your conclusions.  I had resolved that the latter portion of I Cor 10:23-31 was essentially a larger warrant to liberty than I now may conclude.  I think it obvious that Paul was saying that an idol is no thing, but the portion you pointed to (v20 and surrounding previous verses) does make me re-think what constitutes fellowship.  Until I study it out a bit further I am going to say that I see your point, and concede its' merit, that idolatry is subtle and can easily delude the one who thinks that their liberty is the be-all and end-all of the conversation.  I had always known our liberty must take into consideration the weaker brother, but I didn't realize the impact of Paul's admonition or injunction to flee immorality by linking it to fellowship with idols via meat eating (ie "fellowship", I hadn't considered accepting food <under the pretense of agreement to the purpose of the use of the food> from a non-believer quite in that light).

So with that in mind, again, thanks for the dialogue, and I'll try to revisit this thread soon after studying some more.

 

[prophet]

Find your own proof.

I have the BHS and the critical apparatus. You don't. You wouldn't even understand it. So, why the charade?

Exactly, lol.

I was thinking, if I wanted to, could I get the jelly low enough on the shelves?

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk