[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Much has been said concerning idolatry in Israel, and we all could find many O.T. scripture to build a case, but I still have a gnawing question -- why did the Lord never address idolatry in the gospels. The Lord rebuked the Jewish leaders severely, even calling them "snakes" to their face, but never brought up the word "idol" or its many variants. This troubles me.

The Lord did address many serious heart matters repeatedly, such as hypocrisy, loving traditions of men, lording it over others, stubbornness, unbelief, etc. but He never once mentioned idolatry in Israel, when He walked the earth. Why is that? Did He forget? In fact, the N.T. is dead silent on idolatry until Stephen brought up Israel's history in Ac 7.41-43.

The Lord also nearly put no responsibility on the sheep. He placed it all squarely and pointedly and repeatedly on their leaders, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, fools, serpents, blind hypocrites!"

When the N.T. finally confronted idols for the first time, it was circa A.D. 50, at the Acts 15 council, which was supposed to be all about circumcision and the way of salvation. Since James et. al. were overwhelmed by the testimonies of Simeon and the plain truths of scripture, James decided to divert their attention to "abstain from things sacrificed to idols." Talking about changing the subject! It was Jewish pride and religious prejudices in Jerusalem which first introduced the topic of idolatry to the church. Interestingly, when Paul did finally travel to Europe, and confronted the rampant Greek idolatry in Athens and Corinth, he played down the matter of "abstaining," and instead instituted the first "don't ask, don't tell" policy (I Cor 10.25).

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Roger, there was no biblical balance offered. All I heard was people's dislike of what Matt said. He did not insist that you agree with him and even acknowledged the disagreements. He didn't shoot the messengers speaking to him, as you all did him. He put a shield on against the punches and stayed at the table. Again, where is the biblical argument you set forth against what Matt said?

There is enough "Biblical balance" in this one recent post of mine, to meet all your requirements.

Martin Luther, in the early 16th century, as he was facing all the power of the Pope at the Diet of Worms, said that he would not budge unless convicted by "plain reason or the scriptures." Both have been offered here in abundance. Neither has been heard.