In our last article, we argued that genuine Christians cannot be called idolaters, since idolatry is apostasy. This is true in general, as testified by the Old Testament, but this is also true of the two verses most commonly cited in favor of the idea of idolatry of the heart: Ephesians 5:5 and Colossians 3:5. Writers like David Powlison and Tim Keller argue that sinful desires and objects of sinful desire are idols, and even that idolatry is the source of every other sin. Even the most mature Christians, however, still harbor sinful desires with sinful objects. No Christian can claim to be without remnants of sin’s corruption: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). Further, the target audience of authors, pastors, and counselors who adapt the idea of idols of the heart is Christians. Therefore, if idolatry is apostasy, even figurative idolatry as in Ephesians 5:5 and Colossians 3:5, then Powlison and Keller’s concept of idols of the heart has no biblical foundation, because a person cannot be simultaneously a Christian in good standing and an apostate.

This article will further challenge Powlison’s exegesis (summarized in our first article) along with a few other common biblical arguments, to demonstrate that the remaining biblical evidence concurs: idolatry cannot be defined broadly to include any sin or sinful desire, it cannot be identified as the source of every other sin, and genuine Christians cannot be rightly called idolaters.¹

A Word on Worship

Before treating specific texts, a brief comment on the Bible’s definition of worship may prove helpful. Every modern writer who argues for the concept of idolatry of the heart assumes a figurative definition of worship, which extends to all of life. Scripture does speak of doing all things to God’s glory (1 Cor 10:31), but this is different from literal worship. Worship is a distinct act, one action in which a person may glorify God. By exhorting Christians to glorify God in all actions, Paul does not say that any action can be worship, but that any action, like worship, should be done with the purpose of glorifying God. The words used in Scripture to describe worship (Greek: latreuō and proskuneō; Hebrew: ‘avad and khavah) refer to literal rather than figurative worship, in the form of religious service or physically bowing down in worship. The same is true of idolatry: the Greek word eidōlolatria is a compound of eidōlon and latreuō, referring to a person’s literal religious service rendered to idols, or, by metonymy, the false gods represented by idols.²

First John 5:21

Since Powlison presented 1 John 5:21 as the genesis of his understanding of idols of the heart, this text must be treated before any others. In this verse, John writes, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols (eidōlōn).” As noted above, eidōlon commonly refers to images of gods or gods themselves. Powlison, however, argues that eidōlon here is roughly synonymous with epithumia (“desires”). This figurative understanding of eidōlon does not naturally arise from the text of 1 John, however. The Christians to whom the letter was written were well acquainted with the literal idolatry of their pagan neighbors, and this likely would have been their understanding of John’s exhortation. But there is more to this verse than meets the eye. It is not a random or out-of-place exhortation; it flows naturally out of John’s letter.

It is true that one main thread of the letter, as Powlison noted, is the exhortation to flee the things of the world; but an equally prominent thread is John’s warning against Christological heresy. For example, in 4:2–3 John writes, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” Unsurprisingly, this is the context of the final verse: “We know that the son of God has come and given us understanding, so that we might know the true one, and we are in the true one, in Jesus Christ his Son. He is the true God and eternal life” (5:20; translation mine). If Christians are in the true God (i.e., Jesus Christ), John exhorts his readers to keep themselves from any false gods. In light of John’s concern throughout the book, it follows that he refers to Christological heresy with the word eidōlōn. As Karen Jobes concludes, “Rather than an awkward and abrupt ending, 5:21 summarizes the point of the entire letter and challenges readers, both ancient and modern, to decide which god they will worship—the God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ or a false god conjured from human imagination.”³ Jobes also notes that this exhortation forms an inclusio with the opening of the letter, which positively reveals the true source of knowledge about God, namely, the incarnation of the Son of God, who was seen, heard, and touched by the apostles.⁴ This is in contrast to idols, which the prophets characterize as blind and dumb (Ps 115:5), and to heresy, which comes from the imagination of men rather than the revelation of God.⁵

Further, a series of assurances throughout John’s letter leads to the conclusion that those who are born from God do not go after idols. This is a pattern in 1 John. For example, he admonishes his readers to keep from sin in 2:1, in light of his assurance in 3:9 that those born of God do not make a practice of sinning (cf. 4:7). Likewise, he commands his readers in 5:21 to keep themselves from idols, in light of the knowledge in 5:18 that everyone who has been born of God does not keep sinning. This shows us that not only did John conceive of idolatry as referring to false gods literally; he also insisted that regenerate Christians are kept from committing such heinous and unrepentant sins.⁶ By arguing that idolatry here is figurative, referring to sinful desires in general, Powlison puts readers of 1 John in an impossible situation, rendering Christians unable to keep themselves from idolatry (cf. 1 John 1:8, 10) and the Holy Spirit unable to regenerate the elect in a way that keeps them from apostatizing.

Ezekiel 14

Since Powlison argues that Ezekiel 14 “internalizes idolatry,” it is necessary to consider this passage briefly.⁷ G. K. Beale also concludes that the passage “leaves open the possibility that other things than God can be the object of desire in one’s own heart by which security is sought. Whatever is substituted for God as the object of desire is an idol, whether it be a stone image, money or anything else.”⁸

In this passage, some elders of Israel came to Ezekiel in order to seek God’s will, but God told Ezekiel in verse 3, “Son of man, these men have taken their idols into their hearts, and set the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces. Should I indeed let myself be consulted by them?” The phrase in question is “to take one’s idols into one’s heart,” which Powlison and Beale interpret to mean that anything a person takes into his heart becomes an idol. But “taking something into one’s heart” is an idiom to express a devotion to or following of something.⁹ Ezekiel speaks of literal pagan idols to which the elders of Israel had devoted themselves. One may be devoted to other things, but God tells Ezekiel that these men are devoted to idols. In other words, idols are the actual objects of devotion or desire here, not the title of a category for any object of devotion or desire. If the elders had committed themselves to money, Ezekiel likely would not have said “money is your idol,” but rather, “you have taken money into your heart.” Neither does this passage reveal that idolatry is an expression of a prior defection in the heart, as Powlison claims, but that they had devoted themselves to the idols they were already worshiping literally.¹⁰ That God refuses to be consulted by these men shows that their idolatry was literal: they wanted to follow deaf and mute idols and at the same time hear the voice of the living God, but God would not let them have their cake and eat it too.

This has serious pastoral implications. The point of this passage is not to teach about the nature of idolatry, but to demonstrate that God will not be consulted by idolaters and that “the hearts of the house of Israel . . . are all estranged from me through their idols” (Ezek 14:5). This passage speaks judgment against anyone who has devoted himself to an idol and yet comes to God’s prophet to hear God’s Word (14:7–8). Powlison and Beale, however, treat this passage as a source of the idea of idols of the heart, which would lead us to the conclusion that even genuine Christians are under God’s judgment, since they have taken idols into their hearts in the form of “whatever is substituted for God as the object of desire.”¹¹ They are estranged from God through their so-called idols. One can see how a sensitive Christian reading this passage according to the idea of idols of the heart might even conclude that they ought not to read God’s prophetic Word or pray to God, since here God refuses to be consulted by idolatrous people.

The Sermon on the Mount

In Matthew 6:24, Jesus says, “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money (mamōna or mammon).” This passage at first seems to support the idea of idolatry of the heart, to the effect that Jesus presents money as an alternative god to the one true God. In the past, this interpretation has been bolstered by an inaccurate definition of mamōna, often defined as a god or demon. But mamōna, rather than a personal name for a deity, is simply an Aramaic word for wealth.¹² Further, this interpretation is not the natural meaning of Jesus’s teaching. Jesus does not apply the metaphor of worship to one’s relationship to wealth. Rather, he applies the metaphor of servitude to one’s relationship to both God and wealth. God and mammon are not presented as two alternate deities one might worship. Rather, they are both anthropomorphized and presented as two alternate masters one might serve. The nail in the coffin, however, is what Jesus clearly states: “No one can serve two masters.” Therefore, pace Powlison and Keller, someone who genuinely serves the true God cannot at the same time serve the “false god” of wealth.

Earlier in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus expands the prohibition against external murder in the sixth commandment to include internal anger, and the prohibition against adultery in the seventh commandment to include illicit sexual desire (Matt 5:21–30). Some may argue from this that it would also be legitimate to expand the prohibition against external idolatry in the first and second commandments to include internal idols, in the form of sinful desires. This is illegitimate, however, because there is continuity between the internal and external sin in the former cases but not in the latter case. In other words, Jesus equates adulterous acts with adulterous desires. The concept of idolatry of the heart does not equate idolatrous acts with idolatrous desires, which would be a legitimate connection to make.¹³ Internal idolatrous desires and motivations are rather along the lines of what John Calvin had in mind when he wrote, “The mind begets an idol; the hand gives it birth.”¹⁴ The concept of idols of the heart, however, equates idolatrous acts with sinful desires in general. This is not a valid application of Jesus’s teaching.

The Relationship of the First and Second Commandments

Related to this argument from the Sermon on the Mount is a particular view of the Ten Commandments, in which authors like Keller and Beale equate or mutually interpret the first two commandments. For example, Beale follows Luther’s understanding of the Ten Commandments when he writes, “It seems plausible that the first commandment is to be interpreted by the second, so that to ‘have no other gods’ before Israel’s God meant that one was not to ‘make an idol, or any likeness’ of anything in the created world.”¹⁵ Although Luther’s Large Catechism simply lists the first commandment as “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3), Luther’s division of the Ten Commandments includes the prohibition of images (20:4–6) in the first commandment.¹⁶ On the other hand, Reformed confessions have always distinguished between 20:3 and 20:4–6 as the first and second commandment.¹⁷ Instead of interpreting 20:4–6 to be the same commandment as, or a further explanation of 20:3, the Reformed have traditionally understood the first commandment to stipulate whom we must worship, and the second commandment how we must worship him. Whether a cause or an effect, the Lutheran division loses this distinction and goes hand in hand with a downplaying of the literal force of the second commandment, which in recent years has become a growing problem in Reformed churches in America.

The way that Beale and Keller interpret the relationship of the first and second commandments lends to a figurative understanding of both commands. If the first commandment prohibits worshiping any other god and the second commandment further explains that an idol may be made of anything in creation, then they conclude that one’s god may be anything in creation. The first commandment, however, is concerned with the literal worship of false gods (i.e., the transcendent), rather than the figurative worship of the immanent (i.e., money).¹⁸ Likewise, the second commandment is not concerned with the figurative worship of creatures themselves, but with making images of creatures to worship God or a god literally. It is one thing to make an image of a creature and use it as part of literal worship to a deity, and another to figuratively worship (i.e., love, serve, trust) the creature itself. The implied division of the Ten Commandments, along with the figurative understanding of the first two commandments, is not confessionally Reformed, neither does it arise from the text.¹⁹

Proponents of the idea of idols of the heart have also proposed a particular structure of the Ten Commandments: a violation of the nine latter commandments flows out of a violation of the first.²⁰ Traditionally, however, the Reformed have understood the structure of the ten commandments in the form of two tables: duty to God and duty to neighbor.²¹ Again, the former structure is not confessionally Reformed, and it does not arise from the text of Scripture. It may be a plausible structure when considering unbelievers, but for believers, whose God is the Lord and whom God has “redeemed from the house of slavery” (Exod 20:2), being characterized by a transgression of the express letter of the first two commandments (e.g., idolatry) would constitute apostasy.²²

Luther himself drew out the figurative understanding of the first commandment, which writers such as Beale and Keller have followed. He interpreted the first commandment (Exod 20:3–6) to teach that “A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all distress, so that to have a God is nothing else than to trust and believe Him from the [whole] heart.”²³ It is true that an idol is “something in which one trusts in place of or alongside of the only true God.”²⁴ That does not mean, however, that anything a person trusts in is an idol; just as a parent is someone in whom a child trusts, but not everyone a child trusts is his parent. In other words, I would contend that worship in general requires some measure of intentionality, but the idea of idols of the heart implies that we are always worshiping (figurative) idols, often without knowing it.²⁵

The figurative understanding of the first two commandments, which writers use to argue for the concept of idols of the heart, undermines their literal force, namely, that the Lord’s redeemed people shall not apostatize by offering literal worship to any other deity or by making images of any deity. If those whom the Lord has redeemed from the house of slavery commit sins forbidden by the express letter of either of these commandments, it is not an offense equal to bearing false testimony or coveting. Rather, it is a climactic sin of apostasy, which merits a person’s removal from God’s covenant people (cf. 2 Kings 17:15). This has serious pastoral implications. If every sin amounts to or flows from a violation of the first commandment, and if we rightly understand that the transgression of the express letter of this command (i.e., idolatry) by a believer is identified by Scripture as apostasy, then the Lord’s redeemed people must conclude that they are always and unavoidably in a state of apostasy.

Conclusion

This brief treatment of a few key texts has shown that the modern idea of idols of the heart does not arise naturally from Scripture. Despite the well-intentioned exegesis of Powlison et al., we cannot agree that Scripture’s concern shifts from literal to figurative idolatry. Even in as late a letter as 1 John, John exhorts his readers to keep themselves from false gods (5:21). What’s more, we cannot agree with Powlison et al. that Christians are idolaters, even with his figurative definition. Not only does Scripture contradict the foundational claims of the modern idea of idols of the heart—that an idol can be defined as anything and everything, that idolatry is the source of all sin, and that (therefore) Christians are idolaters—but such claims have potential to be quite harmful to Christians as they read Scripture. As we saw in our last article, if the modern idea of idols of the heart were true, and if it were paired with the biblical understanding of idolatry as apostasy, then every Christian would be apostate, without assurance of salvation or the gift of perseverance. Every Christian would also be unable to keep themselves from idolatry, unwelcome to consult God through his Word or prayer, and uncertain whether the Lord is indeed their master, who redeemed them from slavery. In our next and final article, we will consider Keller’s “rebranding of sin,” and present an alternative to Powlison and Keller’s approach to preaching and counseling.

Notes

1. Perhaps it is worth noting that, from my research, Powlison’s exegesis is the most detailed argument for the concept of idols of the heart. Many other writings, unfortunately, fall into question begging, assuming what they have to prove. It usually happens something like this: the author will write extensively about our drift away from God toward sin, or about our natural inclination to justify ourselves through works, and then suddenly, almost as if pulling a rabbit from a hat, they will conclude, as Dane Ortlund says, “What we have really been talking about is idolatry.” Deeper (Wheaton, IL: Crossway 2021), 100. Yet, such authors provide no evidence or exegesis to prove this conclusion.
2. BDAG, s.v., εἰδωλολατρία, εἴδωλον, and λατρεύω. On the latter, note especially: “in our lit. only of the carrying out of religious duties, esp. of a cultic nature, by human beings.”
3. Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, ed. Clinton E. Arnold, ZECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 244. See also: Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, and 3 John, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Peter H. Davids, WBC 51 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 309–10.
4. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, 243. An inclusio is a literary device to emphasize an idea by placing it at the beginning and at the end of the main body.
5. This may be a fruitful way to apply G.K. Beale’s thesis, that Jesus condemned the idolatry of the Jewish leaders by an appeal to Isa 6:9–10 (cf. Matt 13:14–15). Instead of idolizing human tradition, as Beale argues, our observations from 1 John 5:21 lead to the conclusion that their idolatry was refusing to honor Jesus as the incarnate Son of God (cf. John 5:23). That is, they did not confess that Jesus “is the true God” (1 John 5:20). G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology Of Idolatry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2008), 166.
6. 1 John 2:19 is also relevant: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”
7. David Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” The Journal of Biblical Counseling 13.2 (1995): 36.
8. Beale, We Become What We Worship, 166.
9. HALOT, s.v., עלה. See also: Daniel I. Block and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 425–26.
10. Of course, it is true that idolatrous acts are preceded by internal idolatrous motivations (see the discussion of Calvin’s quote in part one). My point, however, is that Ezekiel 14 does not “internalize idolatry” by revealing such preceding motivations. Ezekiel 14 concerns a devotion to idols that were already worshiped, to an iniquity that was already being committed.
11. Beale, We Become What We Worship, 166.
12. BDAG, s.v., μαμωνᾶς; Gary S. Shogren, “Mammon,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000).
13. Tertullian, “On Idolatry,” in Early Latin Theology, ed. S.L. Greenslade, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), chap.2. Tertullian uses a similar logic to argue for a wider view of idolatry.
14. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1.11.8.
15. Beale, We Become What We Worship, 18. Cf. Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope That Matters (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), xvi.
16. Martin Luther, Large Catechism, The Book of Concord Online, 1.
17. E.g., WLC 103 and 107.
18. Of course, it is true that the first commandment forbids the sin of “inordinate and immoderate setting of our mind, will, or affections upon other things, and taking them off from [God] in whole or in part” (WLC 105). This does not mean that such setting of mind, will, or affections constitutes worship of those other things, but rather that we sin by not loving God with our whole heart, mind, strength. Divided devotion means neglected worship. Doing “X” instead of true worship does not make “X” false worship. Note that WLC 105 clearly defines idolatry in literal terms before (and separate from) any mention of inordinate and immoderate affections: “Idolatry, in having or worshiping more gods than one, or any with or instead of the true God.” Further, it is also true that idolatry is worshiping the creature instead of the Creator. But my point here is that this requires thinking of the creature as if it were the Creator—i.e., making the immanent transcendent (e.g., the sun becomes the sun god).
19. The figurative understanding was used by some Reformed, e.g., Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2009), 280. But it is absent from Reformed confessions. Note also, Fisher does not concur with the main point of Powlison and Keller, that idolatry is the source of all sin.
20. E.g., Dane Ortlund, Deeper: Real Change for Real Sinners (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 102; Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope That Matters (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 166; Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 296. This structure is not entirely novel, as something similar is suggested by Fisher.
21. E.g., WLC 98, 102, and 122.
22. I.e., because all sin is a rebellion against the Lord as God and a following of Adam’s lead, in rejecting God’s law and following the Serpent. But Christians have been “delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred . . . to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col 1:13). Further, “Anything that is not from faith [in the Lord as God] is sin” (Rom 14:23). Of course, believers may commit sins by doing things without faith, which is Paul’s argument. But it may be a legitimate application of Paul’s teaching to say that because an unbeliever never does anything from faith in God, then even his good efforts are sinful, and therefore all of his sins come from his lack of faith.
23. Martin Luther, LC 1, 1–3.
24. Heidelberg Catechism (HC) 95. Cf. Zacharius Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard (Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street Printing Company, 1888), in loc.
25. As HC 95 says, an idol is not anything a person trusts, but something a person trusts instead of God. Perhaps a concise definition of idolatry that is more precise than Luther’s, but along the same lines, might be: something that a person intentionally trusts as a god. Paul’s treatment of food offered to idols seems to agree that some intentionality is required (1 Cor 8:4–13; Rom 14). Likewise, one cannot unintentionally worship the true God. An even more precise definition would be: idolatry is the transferring of worship that is due to the Creator alone to a creature, or the worshiping of the Creator in a way that he has not commanded. Cf. the illuminating disputation on idolatry in William Den Boer and Riemer A. Faber eds., Synopsis of a Purer Theology (Landrum, SC: Davenant Press, 2023), 1:191–204. The Synopsis defines idolatry along these lines (i.e., rendering divine or religious worship to creatures), rather than figuratively. As in all traditional Reformed treatments of idolatry, the main concern is literal idolatry, particularly the “idol-mania of the Roman Church” (200). The Synopsis importantly notes that there is a type of service and honor that other men are rightly owed (201 ff.). On the other hand, Powlison et al., with their strong and imprecise statements (e.g., a hangry person is an active idolater), often give the impression that we can render no service or honor to, nor place any trust or enjoyment in fellow people or any of God’s good creation without being in danger of committing idolatry.

©Christian Bland. All Rights Reserved.

You can find the whole series here.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• Christian Bland

  

  Rev. Christian Bland (M.Div. Westminster Seminary California) is a Teaching Elder in the PCA, serving as the Assistant Pastor of Spring Meadows Presbyterian Church in Las Vegas, NV. Christian is married to Michaela, and they have one child.

  More by Christian Bland ›