What then do I say? that what is sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?
The Corinthians had a slogan they were proud of: an idol is nothing, so meat offered to one cannot matter. Paul picks up their own logic and asks if he is contradicting himself. His answer shows what stands behind a lifeless image.
Paul had already dismissed idols as empty. His question does not take that back. It draws a line between the image and the power behind it.
Does this contradict the apostle's earlier reasoning, and that of the prophets of old, that the idol was a mere nothing? Not at all. These products of man's devising have no existence, and their images neither see nor hear. But demons are very real. They take advantage of man's imagination or his fears, and claim the idol-sacrifices for themselves.
If the idol is empty, why did it hold such a grip on people? Something more than wood and stone must have been at work.
He had already, along with all who have knowledge, treated both idols and their offerings with contempt. He does not now take back his words. But he will also let us know what sort of power animates and secretly sustains these empty vanities. Human souls and bodies were defiled by bowing down to something which was not God — something that in itself was nothing in the world. But "nothing" cannot move men's souls. There is a power at work, and it operates everywhere.
No pagan worshipper set out to honour demons. But what an act does is not settled by what the worshipper has in mind.
The idols and their sacrifices may be completely powerless. But demons hiding behind them shut the true God out of souls and take for themselves the honour due to Him alone. This is the effect of heathen worship, not the intention of the worshippers or of those who share in their sacrifices. They no more planned to revere demons — fallen and evil spirits — than the unconverted today mean to serve Satan. But they did, and they still do, all the same. The truth puts things in their real light, which man's reasoning, imagination, or indifference leaves in the shade.
The issue is not whether the food changes. It is what the act says in public about where a person stands.
One might say that an idol is nothing anyway, and so there is no significance in any outward identification with it. But this is not correct reasoning. True, the idol is nothing, and meat offered to idols is not actually changed by this. But behind the idol in every case is an evil spirit, and the Gentiles, in their idol worship, were sacrificing to demons. Can the believer have any part in this? It is not a question of whether his own conscience is defiled, or his own soul affected, but of his outwardly showing fellowship with an idol. He is outwardly compromising the honour of his Lord.
The wider passage lines up three fellowships, each entered by the same simple act. No one can hold two of them at once.
Verses 16 to 20 set before us three communions: the Christian, the Jewish, and the heathen. They are centred, in that order, in the Table of the Lord, the altar in the middle of Israel, and the idol sacrifices of paganism. Each one is expressed by the act of eating. In this passage Israel's altar is not the question. It comes in only as an illustration, and is left there. The issue here lies between the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons. These two are totally, fundamentally and continuously opposed. It is impossible to share in both. "You cannot," says the apostle, twice over in verse 21.
Freedom is real. Careless use of it leaves a believer exposed.
Christian liberty is indeed always free; but let God's people beware. That wicked one will certainly touch them if they place themselves carelessly within his reach. To take part in an idol feast would be something morally incompatible with a true and intelligent share in the Lord's table.
- Nothing — Paul stands by his verdict that the idol is empty. The image sees nothing and hears nothing.
- Something — yet "nothing" cannot move men's souls. A real power stands behind the empty image: demons who claim the sacrifice for themselves.
- Unintended — no worshipper meant to honour demons, just as no unbeliever today means to serve Satan. The act still carried its meaning.
- Identification — eating joins you to the table you eat at. The question is not your own conscience. It is your Lord's honour in public.
- Exclusive — the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons stand opposed. Careless liberty walks straight into the enemy's reach.
But that what [the nations] sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God. Now I do not wish you to be in communion with demons.
The Corinthians had a clever argument. An idol is nothing at all, so eating at a pagan temple feast should be harmless. Paul agrees about the idol. Then he names who receives those sacrifices.
The apostle does not retreat from what he said earlier about idols being empty. He shifts the question from the statue to what stands behind it.
Does this contradict what the apostle said earlier, and the prophets before him — that the idol was nothing at all? Not at all. Even if the things man makes have no existence, and their images cannot see or hear, demons are very real. They take advantage of man's imagination or his fears. They claim the idol-sacrifices for themselves. So the emptiness of idols is no reason to eat meat sacrificed to them. For "what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God." (See Deuteronomy 32:17.)
So the demons are not idle spectators. They have a purpose in the whole business, and a prize they are after.
You forget that when they sacrifice to idols, they are really sacrificing to demons. The demons are the ones who stir up this idol worship. The idol may indeed be nothing at all. But the demons behind it were very real. In leading men to worship idols they were leading men to worship demons, and so seizing the homage due to God alone.
A Corinthian could protest that his heart was not in the ceremony. The verse leaves no room for that. Eating and drinking is itself a declaration.
In doing so they were identifying themselves and having fellowship with the demons who used the idol to seize God's place! They could not say, "our hearts are not in it, there is no spiritual connection with the idol." No! By the act of eating and drinking what had been offered to the idol, they expressed identification and fellowship with it and with the demon!
Pagan worshippers did not set out to honour demons. That changed nothing.
This is the effect of pagan worship, not the intention of the worshippers or of those who share in their sacrifices. They meant to honour demons no more than unconverted people today mean to serve Satan. But they did it, and they still do.
Israel made the golden calf as a picture of the Lord, not as a rival to Him. That did not make it safe.
Verse 5 shows that in some way the visible calf was to represent the unseen Lord — so they thought. Now it is a fact that among pagan peoples the visible idol does represent an unseen power, as 1 Corinthians 10:20 shows. The idol is nothing, but the power it represents is that of a demon. So if any power stood behind the golden calf, it was of a satanic kind and not of God.
Paul's stated wish — that they not be partners with demons — is not a mild preference. Fellowship with the Lord makes a second fellowship impossible.
Communion with demons, answers the apostle, is the result... But no one can have fellowship with the Lord and with demons. If he tampers with demons, has he not in effect abandoned the Lord? ... If fellowship takes some in, it shuts others out... Love cannot help being jealous of wandering affections. It would not be love if it did not resent unfaithfulness. And is He so powerless that we can despise Him and get away with it?
This is not only an ancient problem. The same hand works at every level of culture, from the simple to the highly educated.
Satan is the real promoter of it all. He knows how to lead a poor, unthinking pagan to be satisfied with an imaginary charm. He leads the Greeks and Romans to enjoy their grand statues, and the Brahmins and Hindus to take pride in their superior and refined mysticism... Add to this another kind of idolatry that Christians are sometimes drawn into: letting anything but Christ have the first place in the heart. For God is revealed in Him. He "is the image of the invisible God" — "He is the true God." "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:21.
- Behind — the idol itself is empty, but a real being stands behind it. Paul's point is not that the statue has power. It is that someone else receives the offering.
- Behind, and hungry — demons drive idol worship. They take for themselves the homage that belongs to God alone.
- Behind, and binding — eating and drinking expresses fellowship. What the worshipper intends does not change what the act says.
- Behind, and excluding — fellowship with the Lord rules out fellowship with demons. His love is jealous, and it will not share.
- Behind, still today — the same power fits itself to charms, grand statues, or refined mysticism. The last warning is about anything that takes Christ's place in the heart.
Ye cannot drink [the] Lord's cup, and [the] cup of demons ye cannot partake of [the] Lord's table, and of [the] table of demons.
Some Christians in Corinth still sat down at meals held in idol temples, sure that an idol was nothing. His answer is not advice but a flat impossibility: two cups and two tables cannot both be yours.
Their reasoning began with real truth and ended in the wrong place.
Some of the Corinthians knew that an idol was nothing in the world, and that there was no God but one. Yet they thought that if they saw that clearly, they could sit and eat in an idol's temple. In this they were wrong... Granted that the idol was nothing, yet behind it were demons, and by sitting at the idol's festival they would be having communion with demons.
Each table stands for a fellowship, and each fellowship makes a claim on the people who share it.
The cup is the fellowship of the blood of Christ. The bread is the fellowship of the body of Christ. Every believer is bound to be faithful to this fellowship. It marks off the whole company from everything He died to — from sin and from the world. In connection with sin and the world, the god of this world spreads his table.
Paul could have said this was unwise or forbidden. He chose a stronger word, and repeated it.
He does not say you ought not to "partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons," but "you cannot." The heart cannot take in the Lord's rich provision, and so be filled and moved by His love, and at the same time be ruled by some evil thing it wants for itself. That is quite impossible.
The wider passage sets three forms of worship side by side. This verse names the two that collide.
Verses 16 to 20 set before us three communions: the Christian, the Jewish, and the heathen. Each has its centre — the Table of the Lord, the Altar in the middle of Israel, and the idol sacrifices of paganism. Each one shows itself in the act of eating... The issue here lies between the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons. These two are totally, fundamentally and continuously opposed. It is impossible to be a participator in both. "You cannot," says the Apostle, twice in verse 21.
Earlier in the chapter Paul speaks of the blood and body of Christ. Here he switches to the Lord — and the switch carries weight.
He does not say here "the blood" or the "body of the Lord." That comes in 1 Corinthians 11. Here it is Christ, because it becomes a question of grace. "The Lord" brings in the idea of authority... But he does not forget His authority. It is not simply the love of Christ, but His full authority as the Lord. The apostle sets two mighty powers against each other. On one side are demons, a power stronger than man, struggling with him here below. On the other is the Lord who shed His blood for them — the Lord of all, who will judge the living and the dead.
Some readers have turned the phrase "table of demons" into a weapon against other groups of believers.
To call the tables of national churches or sects tables of demons is a simple absurdity, in defiance of the plain language of Scripture. What "demons" means is clearly stated in Scripture: nothing but the gods of the heathen... The apostle speaks of communion with demons (in idol temples) and heathen sacrifices, and nothing else. To apply this to wrong church principles, where the Lord is owned as the only object, is trifling with Scripture and nonsense in itself.
The next verse asks whether we provoke the Lord to jealousy, and whether we are stronger than He. That question has teeth.
We have seen that this was something that some of the Corinthians were doing. But they could not do it without consequence. It was a provocation to the Lord... If they kept up such gross inconsistency, the Lord Himself would take up the matter.
- Behind — the idol itself was nothing, but demons stood behind it, so the meal was real communion with them.
- Between — a table joins you to everything it stands for; two tables mean two fellowships that clash at every point.
- Beyond — Paul says "cannot," not "should not"; His love and a hidden rival cannot rule the same heart.
- Belonging — the title "Lord" is deliberate: grace invites us to His table, authority keeps us there.
- Beware — "table of demons" means the heathen feast, not other Christian gatherings. Keep both tables, though, and the Lord Himself takes the matter up.