What does the Bible say about eating food / meat that has been sacrificed to idols?

Now some of the Corinthians knew that an idol was nothing in the world, and that there was none other God but one (1 Cor. 8:4); yet they thought, if they discerned that, they might sit at meat in an idol's temple. In this they were wrong; and the apostle corrects their mistake. Care for their weaker brethren should have made them keep aloof from all participation, even only externally, in idolatrous rites. (1 Cor. 8:10 12.) But more than this, they had no business to be there at all. The liberty for which some might plead, on the ground that they had discernment about the idol, should have been held in check by consideration for the weak brother's conscience. The question of being there at all was, however, settled for ever by their having a place at the Lord's table, and participating in the Lord's Supper. Granted that the idol was nothing, yet behind it were demons, and by sitting at meat at the idol's festival they would be having communion with demons. Was that a fitting thing for those who bore the name of Christ? "I would not," said the apostle, "that ye should have fellowship with demons." (1 Cor. 10:20.) To drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons was impossible. To be partakers of the Lord's table and the table of demons was equally impossible. "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord," wrote Paul, "and the cup of demons: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of demons." (1 Cor. 10:21.) The question put in that way was obviously clear. The Lord and demons were antagonistic. A man could not have fellowship with both. Those in danger of outward conformity to heathen rites had never viewed the question in this light. How much light a word may cast upon a point! The Lord and demons! Between these there was no communion. Between them no man could form a connecting-link; yet a Christian, if unwatchful, might have fellowship with demons. (v. 10.) Solemn thought! How has it been in Christendom sadly exemplified!

Now the importance of watchfulness over oneself the history of Israel exemplified. How many came out of Egypt! How few of them entered the land! Had they forgotten that history, written for our admonition on whom the ends of the ages have come? Watchfulness became them, and a taking heed to themselves, lest they should fall. Wherefore let them flee from idolatry. (1 Cor. 10:14.) Would they make the question raised simply one of the exercise or not of a right? Had they forgotten that he that eat of the sacrifice was partaker of the altar? Now they were partakers of the Lord's table. Between that and the table of demons there was, there could be, no fellowship. If the former was their place and privilege, they could not be partakers of the latter. Our right, our liberty, is not all that we have to think of; another question has to be remembered, Is such a thing expedient? All things are lawful; but all things are not expedient or profitable. All things are lawful; but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but another's welfare. (1 Cor. 10:23-24.) Yet there was to be no bondage in such a matter. Whatever was sold in the shambles they might freely eat, asking no questions about it for conscience' sake. The earth and its fulness are the Lord's. An invitation even to a heathen man's house to dine they need not refuse, if minded to go, and there they might freely eat of all that was set before them. But if told that food set before them had been offered to an idol, they were not to eat of it for the person's sake who told them, and for that one's conscience. Let them show real care for their brother's welfare, and that communion with demons must at all cost be refused; and let them do all to the glory of God, putting no stumbling-block in the way of any, but seeking their welfare, thus becoming imitators of Paul as he was of Christ.

"All things are lawful" (v. 23) is connected with what is sold in the shambles. The apostle alludes to the custom of selling carcases for food in the common way after the animal had been offered in an idol's temple. But suppose we were sitting at a table with a person just come out from idolatry, and he said, "That joint was offered to an idol." His conscience is not free, and for his sake I do not eat it. To me it is all common meat.

(Vv. 18-22). Having set forth the deep significance of the cup and the loaf, the Apostle warns us against having any part in human fellowships which are set aside, or condemned, by the death of Christ. He first alludes to Israel to establish the important principle that, by partaking of a sacrifice, we express communion with all that it sets forth. This makes it so intensely solemn for a Christian to have part with anything that expresses fellowship with idols. The Corinthian believers knew that the idols themselves were nothing, and the meats offered to idols were no different from other meats; they were therefore in danger of arguing that they could attend a heathen temple and eat meats offered to idols. No, says the Apostle, you forget that the things they sacrifice to idols are really sacrificed to demons, who are the instigators of this idol worship. The idol may, indeed, be a mere nonentity, but the demons behind them were very real, and in leading men to worship idols they were leading men to worship demons, and thus usurp the homage due to God alone. How, then, could the Christian, who by drinking of the cup of the Lord expressed fellowship with the Lord, His death, and His people, dare to drink of a cup that expressed fellowship with demons? If we sit down at the Lord's table, where He presides, and partake of the blessings that He provides, how can we partake in the evils that demons may provide for the gratification of the flesh at their table? The Lord is surely jealous lest the affections of His people be drawn away from Himself to another. Can a believer who has wandered in affection from the Lord with impunity ignore the Lord? Are we stronger than He? Let us beware of provoking the Lord to act in governmental dealings with us, as God had to do with Israel.

(Vv. 23-11:1). Having warned us against every idolatrous fellowship, the Apostle meets questions that may arise as to eating meats apart from the idol's temple. Difficulties may arise in the markets, or at feasts in private houses, where meats that have been offered to idols may be sold or served. In such cases let each remember that, if all things are lawful, it by no means follows that all things are expedient, and that we have to consider what will be for the edification and advantage of others. In the markets, or at the feasts, we need ask no questions, as we can partake of food as being the Lord's and His provision. If, however, it is pointed out that the meats have been sacrificed to idols, then the Christian should refrain from eating for the sake of a believer who has a conscience about it, and to prevent an unbeliever bringing the charge that believers eat of meats offered to the very idols they condemn.

A. You cannot morally. The peace-offering gives the understanding of it. Some was burned on the altar; but of the flesh the priest ate the part offered to God, and they themselves, the offerers, ate the rest. The principle was, the eaters were identified with the altar. If it were a thanksgiving, it must be eaten the same day; but two days were allowed in the ease of a vow, because there was a stronger energy in it, and none might be eaten on the third day at all. And so, if they were at table at a feast, he says, Eat what is set before you, unless it is given you as having been offered at an idol's temple, and then — no. Of course, you could do the act of eating of idols' sacrifices, but you cannot to God and to the devil together. Then comes the question whether it is only those who are eating who are identified; and I get the local Church spoken of as the body of Christ. I must take in all Christians when I go out into the mystic body. The metochos is merely the external act of partaking; but if it is Christ, it is the whole body. I cannot call an assembly the body of Christ, except so far as it may represent the whole body. At the altar it is identification; I am koinonos with it. You do not get the Lord's table and "koinonos."There is a distinction; the Lord is somebody over me. I do not think Christ is ever called the Lord of the assembly; He is Lord of the individual, but not of the assembly.

In this way the apostle shows outward association with heathen idolatrous ceremonies implies communion with demons - a conclusion which, no doubt, came as a surprise to the Corinthians. They would have argued along the following lines: 'we are not involved in idolatry because we visit the temple precincts only to eat some meat; we are convinced that idols are nothing and do not believe in them.' Paul anticipates this objection by stating that he knew very well that an idol was nothing (v.20); he had taught this himself earlier (8:3). However, unbelievers believed in idols so what they were doing was idolatry. If the Corinthians became outwardly involved with it they would be guilty of inward communion with the principle behind it: the worship of demons.

One might say that an idol anyway was nothing, and therefore there was 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 honor of his Lord.

But 1 Cor. 10 has still more to say to us on this point. I wish here to remind my readers that the apostle is speaking as the mouth-piece of God, as the exponent and interpreter of the mind of God. He is authoritatively giving what the will of God is. Well, then, he says: "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" (vers. 20, 21). He is speaking here, evidently, as verse 19 indicates, of the liberty some of them boasted they had to eat meat in an idol's temple (see 1 Cor. 8:9-10). He does not deal with this matter here in chap. 10 as he deals with it in chap. 8. There he appeals to the effect it might have on a weak brother whose conscience still regarded the idol to be something. If he was emboldened to go in the idol's temple and eat meat sacrificed to it by the example of one who went in and partook on the ground of knowing the idol was nothing, it would mean for him a defiled conscience. The apostle denounces the use of this boasted liberty as inconsiderate destruction of conscience in the weak brother; as sinning against him, and thus sinning against Christ.

In chapter 10 the apostle looks at this matter from another standpoint. The act of eating the meat is the expression of identification with the fellowship of the idol, or the demon it represents. Such an act is in violation of the fellowship of God's Son. The one doing it would be regarded by all observers of it as connected with the fellowship of which the idol was the centre. Now the fellowship of idols, or demons, is antagonistic in nature and character from the fellowship of God's Son. It follows therefore that eating meat in the temple of an idol on Monday is not merely inconsistent with breaking bread on the Lord's Day, but a denial of what the act of breaking bread on the Lord's Day is the expression of. If on the Lord's Day we are identified with the fellowship of God's Son, we are identified with it on Monday — on every day of the week. The fellowship of the breaking of bread is an expression of what does not end with that act or event. There is a very real and true sense in which the Christian is at the table of the Lord all the time — not only on the first day of the week, but all the days of the week. His daily, hourly life is inevitably linked with it.

There was another area where there was ample scope for this care and consideration to be shown. In chapter 8 Paul writes at length about “the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols” (1 Cor. 8:4). Some, having knowledge that the idol in itself is nothing, were so bold that they not only ate what was offered, but they did so in the very precincts of the idol's temple. In eating there, they were compromising the holy Christian fellowship into which they were called and provoking the Lord to jealousy (1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Cor. 10:19-22). In eating the sacrifices at all they were disregarding the consciences of their weaker brethren, who might be made bold to do the same thing: “with conscience of the idol … as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled” (1 Cor. 8:7). Paul uses very strong language in verses 11 and 12 of chapter 8: “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ”. He is said to be “the … brother … for whom Christ died”, and will not perish in the eternal sense, but a brother whose conscience was so offended might be lost to the Christian testimony. How at all costs care for the saints would avoid such an outcome. “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Cor. 8:13). There is to be consideration for all who might be involved in such an action: “But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not, for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof” (1 Cor. 10:28, 32-33). We are not to make a show of our own liberty, or to seek our own profit, but the edification of others (1 Cor. 10:23-24).

This decree therefore does not pronounce upon the nature of the things forbidden, but upon the opportuneness — the Gentiles having in fact been in the habit of doing all these things. We must observe that they were not things forbidden by the law only. It was that which was contrary to the order established by God as Creator, or to a prohibition given to Noah when he was told to eat flesh. Woman was only to be connected with man in the sanctity of marriage, and this is a very great blessing. Life belonged to God. All fellowship with idols was an outrage against the authority of the true God. Let Moses teach his own laws; these things were contrary to the intelligent knowledge of the true God. It is not therefore a new law imposed by Christianity, nor an accommodation to the prejudices of the Jews. It has not the same kind of validity as a moral ordinance that is obligatory in itself. It is the expression to christian intelligence of the terms of man's true relations with God in the things of nature, given by the goodness of God, through the leaders at Jerusalem, to ignorant Christians, setting them free from the law, and enlightening them with regard to the relations between God and man, and to that which was proper to man — things of which, as idolatrous Gentiles, they had been ignorant. I have said, addressed to christian intelligence: accordingly there is nothing inconsistent in eating anything that is sold at the shambles; for I acknowledge God who gave it, and not an idol. But if the act implies communion with the idol, even to the conscience of another, it would be provoking God to jealousy; I sin against Him or against my neighbour. I do not know whether an animal is strangled or not, but if people act so as to imply that it is indifferent whether life belongs to God or not, I sin again; I am not defiled by the thing, but I fail in christian intelligence with regard to the rights of God as Creator. With regard to fornication, this enters into the category of christian purity, besides being contrary to the order of the Creator; so that it is a direct question of good and evil, and not only of the rights of God revealed to our intelligence. This was important as a general principle, more than in the detail of the things themselves.

In sum the principles established are these: purity by marriage according to God's original institution; that life belongs to God; and the unity of God as one only true God — Godhead, life, and God's original ordinance for man. The same thing is true of the foundations laid by the assembly at the basis of their decree, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."