Should Christians participate in religious festivals of other religions?

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.

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!

(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.

He enjoins, with regard to idolatry, that holy fear which avoids the occasion of doing evil, the occasion of falling. There is association and communion through the table of which we partake with that which is on it; and we Christians, being many, are but one bread and one body, inasmuch as we share the same bread at the Lord's supper. Those in Israel who ate of the sacrifices were partakers of the altar — were identified with it. So those who ate of idol's meat as such were identified with the idol it was offered to. Was this to say that the idol was anything? No. But as it is written (Deut. 32), "The things which the Gentiles offered, they offered to demons and not to God." Should a Christian then, partake of the table of demons? The table was the table of demons, the cup the cup of demons — an important principle for the assembly of God. Would one provoke the Lord by putting Him on a level with demons? Allusion is again made to Deuteronomy 32: 21. The apostle repeats his principle already established, that he had liberty in every respect, but that on the one hand he would not put himself under the power of anything; on the other, being free, he would use his liberty for the spiritual good of all. To follow out this rule, these are his instructions: Whatsoever was sold in the market they should eat without question of conscience. If any man said, "This was sacrificed to idols," it was a proof that he had conscience of an idol. They should then not eat of it, because of his conscience. For as to him who was free, his liberty could not be judged by the conscience of the other; for, as to doctrine, and where there was knowledge, the apostle recognises it as a truth that the idol was nothing. The creature was simply the creature of God. Communion with that which was false I ought to avoid for myself, especially in that which relates to communion with God Himself. I should deny myself the liberty which the truth gave me, rather than wound the weak conscience of others.

He enjoins, with regard to idolatry, that holy fear which avoids the occasion of doing evil, the occasion of falling. There is association and communion through the table of which we partake with that which is on it; and we Christians, being many, are but one bread and one body, inasmuch as we share the same bread at the Lord's supper. Those in Israel who ate of the sacrifices were partakers of the altar-were identified with it. So those who ate of idol's meat as such were identified with the idol it was offered to. Was this to say that the idol was anything? No. But as it is written (Deut. 32), "The things which the Gentiles offered, they offered to demons and not to God." Should a Christian then, partake of the table of demons? The table was the table of demons, the cup the cup of demons-an important principle for the assembly of God. Would one provoke the Lord by putting Him on a level with demons?

Does not the consideration of these things deeply stir our affections for the Lord? No doubt Paul intended that they should. How then could any of them eat and drink in the idol temple that which had been offered to the idol? In doing so they were identifying themselves and having fellowship with the demons who used the idol to usurp 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 physically eating and drinking what had been offered to the idol identification and fellowship with it and the demon were expressed! What a solemn reality!

'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' (v. 21). We have seen that this was something that some of the Corinthians were doing. But it was not something that could be done without consequence. It was a provocation to the Lord. 'Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?' (v. 22). If such gross inconsistency was persisted in, the Lord Himself would take up the matter.

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.

This principle can certainly be applied to a denominational association. Many denominations have been so mixed with idolatry that any Christian should discern this clearly, and have no fellowship with such things. The very effort to exalt and justify a certain denomination, has in it the element of idolatry; for it puts the denomination in the place of Christ. Certainly we are to love those Christians who may be deceived by such things, but the thing itself we should avoid.

The same thing was true in principle of the idol sacrifices of the Gentile world. The idols they venerated represented demons; and these demons were but subordinate officers of Satan. By their sacrifices they entered into the communion of demons. Now such a communion as this the child of God is to flee at all costs.

Or, if a believer accepts an invitation to a meal with an unbeliever, he is to be fully free to eat what is furnished without question. But if his host, or anyone present, were to tell him this had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, then immediately the issue is raised as to whether he will recognize the idol. His informer certainly has this in view, and therefore the believer is not to eat. This is proper care for the informer's conscience. And again it is said, "for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." If my eating would give another the impression that I believed the food was a demon's, and not the Lord's, then I should not eat. So whether eating in the first case, or not eating in the other, the basis of truth for both is identical.

Hence we have the principle applied in general, and tested particularly, in verses 25-30. "Everything that is offered for sale in the shambles eat, examining nothing for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and its fulness. And if any of the unbelieving invites you, and ye desire to go, all that is set before you eat, examining nothing for conscience sake. But if any say to you, This is sacrificed, eat not for his sake that pointed [it] out and conscience,† but conscience I say, not one's own but the other's; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience? If‡ I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?" Thus the principle of God's creation holds good for all that is on sale in the market, as well as for what might be on an unbeliever's table, if one should go there, and one may eat in either case without special inquiry. It is otherwise, not merely in an idol temple but even in private, where one should say, This is offered to holy purposes, because he evidently has a conscience about it, though one otherwise might have perfect liberty. It is good in such a case to deny oneself, and not expose one's liberty to be judged by another, or incur evil speaking for the thing for which I give thanks. One must in love respect the scruple of the weakest saint, while holding fast by the intelligence and liberty of Christ.