FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS

A large portion of 1 Corinthians was written by the Apostle Paulin response to some queries that the Corinthian church had sent to him. Thus weread in 1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wroteunto me…." Among the issues which he addressed is an issue that many ofus, who are first generation Christians in Singapore, have to face: the issueof food offered to idols. The question is simple: may a Christian eat food thathas been offered to idols, or in the local context, to deceased ancestors? Somewould give a blanket prohibition based on Acts 15:29 and Revelation 2:14, 20,and harshly renounce anyone who teaches otherwise. The issue is, however, notso straightforward, and a blanket prohibition may be as wrong as indiscriminatepermission. Paul addresses the question, under inspiration, in 1 Corinthians8:1–13 and 10:14–33.

Before examining what Paul has to say, it would be helpful for usto know a little of the background of the Corinthian situation that led to theirquestion to Paul. In the Graeco-Roman world in which the Corinthian Christianslived, a system of sacrifices to pagan deities was central to the religious,social and domestic life of the people. This was because the best of theanimals were often in the pagan temples then existing. The offerings werecustomarily divided into three portions. One portion was burned on the altar,another portion was placed on sacrificial table for the deity; and the thirdportion was allotted to the worshippers for their consumption in special roomswithin the temple precincts (cf. 1 Cor 8:10). Sometimes notable citizens wereinvited to special feasts in the temple. One papyri invitation discovered byarchaeologists had the words: "Nikephorus asks you to dine at a banquet ofthe Lord Sarapis in the Birth-House on the 23^rd, from the 9^th hour." Such invitations wouldhave been common place in the social life of the city of Corinth, and it was particularly a problemfor Christians. Sometimes their commercial and social standing or membership intrade guilds would demand them to attend. Other times, a Christian could beinvited to participate in dinners hosted by their friends or relatives who hadjust offered some special sacrifice (cf. 1 Cor 10:27). To turn down such invitationsmight be considered rude. Moreover, sometimes the meat that remained from thesacrifices were sent to the market places to be sold (1 Cor 10:25). Thequestion then arose: was the Christian housewife at liberty to purchase thesemeats, which might well had been the best meat in the market since onlyunblemished animals were sacrificed? To add to the difficulties, there were thepoor in the church who would in the past have been beneficiaries of thegratuitous banquets in the temple precincts. Were these at liberty to continueto benefit from such banquets? Indeed, should a Christian eat meat that hasbeen sacrificed at all?

Convictions in the church were sharply divided. There were thosewho would insist that such meat was tainted by idolatry and so should neitherbe eaten nor bought. There were others who countered by saying that since thereis only one God, the idols which were sacrificed unto were simply blocks ofwood or stone without any significance, and so the meat offered to them couldnot possibly be tainted. In fact, to have any scruples about these meats wouldbe to give credence to the popular conception that the idols are indwelt by thespirits of the so-called "gods and lords" (1 Cor 8:5).

In the face of such varied arguments, how did Paul respond? It isinteresting to note that Paul did not appeal nor allude to the prohibitionreported in Acts 15:29 at all. The Corinthian Christians had been thinkingabout the issue and they needed a more theological and rational response.

An Idol is Nothing

Paul begins his answer by expressing agreement with theproposition that "an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is noneother God but one" (1 Cor 8:4). The heathens may have many gods and lordsin heaven and on earth, for they had celestial deities, and some of theirheroes have been made into terrestrial gods to mediate on behalf of men. Butthese were only so-called "gods and lords" (1 Cor 8:5). All theirdivinity and mediation were imaginary. Christians should be clear that there isonly "one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and oneLord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor 8:6).Eating or abstaining from food offered to idols is in itself inconsequential (1Cor 8:8). Meat offered to idols indeed cannot be tainted. Considered bythemselves, they can be eaten just as any ordinary food which God has provided(1 Cor 10:26). Paul expands on this fact in application in 1 Corinthians10:25–27,

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles [market], that eat, asking no questionfor conscience sake [i.e.,asking no question of conscience]: For the earth is the Lord’s, and thefullness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast [in his home], and ye bedisposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question forconscience sake.

The point is clear: as Christians, we must not allow pagansuperstitions to prevail in our minds so that we actually believe that foodoffered to idols have indeed been consumed by the pagan gods represented by theidols, and so are tainted and not fit for consumption by Christians. Thus, aChristian in Singapore needs not feel constrained not to eat Halal chickenbecause it has been ritualistically slaughtered. So long as nothing poisonousis added, no religious ritual can taint food in any way. Similarly, those of uswho are first generation Christians need not worry if any fruit left in thefridge of our parents’ home have been offered to idols or to deceasedancestors. If no one is in, we can simply pick it up to eat, asking no questionas to whether it has been offered.

However, there are two other factors which we have to consider.

For Conscience Sake

Firstly, up to the time the letter was written ("unto thishour"—v. 8:7), not all the members of the Corinthian church were convincedof the fact that idols are nothing or that food cannot be tainted by religiousexercises. As Christians they certainly believed that there is only one God,but perhaps they thought that the idols represent demons and that the demonssomehow eat of the food sacrificed; and therefore they did not have freedom intheir conscience even to eat of food purchased in the market, which might havebeen offered. If such a person were to knowingly eat of meat that have beensacrificed, their conscience, being weak, would be defiled (v. 7b), and theywould sin against God "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom14:23).

Paul tells those with stronger conscience to remember their weakerbrethren and to bear with them, lest, by their indiscreet actions, they stumblethe weak by wounding their weak conscience and so sin against Christ (1 Cor8:9–13). Paul applies this doctrine in two situations.

The first situation involves participating at an idol’s feast atthe temple. Paul tells the ‘strong,’ who might be tempted to go, that theycould stumble the ‘weak’ members in the church (1 Cor 8:10). In 1 Corinthians10, he would give another reason why they should not participate in the idol’sfeast. We will address the reason in our next section, but one good reason,given here in chapter 8, is that their action would embolden the ‘weaker’brethren to put away their conscience (cf. 1 Tim 1:19).

The second situation is when a Christian is invited by a paganfriend to his home to have a feast. We have seen earlier that Paul tells themthat they may go,—asking no question of conscience (1 Cor 10:27). They need noteven inquire if the food had been sacrificed. However, the situation would bequite different if the host or any one else should make it known that the foodhad been offered in sacrifice unto idols. In such a situation, the Christianshould "eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for consciencesake…" (1 Cor 10:28), i.e. for the sake of the conscience of him thatshowed it (v. 29). Paul does not indicate if there should be a difference ifthe person who makes the disclosure is a Christian or an unbeliever. I believehe would say the same. If the informant were an unbeliever, the Christian’sparticipation in the feast could become occasion for evil speaking and scandal(1 Cor 10:30, 32). If he were a believer, he could be stumbled by yourboldness.

Translated to the situation in modern Singapore, we would say thata Christian should have no qualms about going to a wedding banquet of a Hinducouple. However, if it is made known to you that the food that will be laid onyour table have been blessed by a Hindu priest or sacrificed to a Hindu idol,then you should refrain from going.

Fellowship with Devils

The second factor that must be considered, in whether we may eatfood sacrificed to idols, is that participating in an overtly religious feastassociated with a pagan temple or an idol would involve fellowship with demonsand become occasion of temptation and sin. This was the emphasis of Paul in 1Corinthians 10:12–22. In regards to temptation, he tells the Corinthians:"Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. …Wherefore my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry" (1 Cor 10:12, 14). AChristian standing in a idol’s temple can so easily be tempted with idolatrysuch as when the mind is tempted to think that there is any sacredness in theidols.

The point with regard to fellowship with demon is more difficult.Paul had said that idols are nothing so that food sacrificed to them aretherefore not tainted in anyway, and he affirms this assertion (1 Cor 10:20).However, a religious feast in a temple would always identify the participantswith the religion. A person who eats of the sacrifices in the temple thenbecomes partaker of what the religion stands for. Even unbelievingJews—"Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor 10:18)—became partakers of thealtar, or were identified with Judaism by eating of the sacrifices. The casewith the idols’ feast is similar. Though the idols are nothing, all pagan religionsare satanically inspired, and so to participate in an idol’s feast would be tofellowship with demons. Paul says it emphatically:

The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils,and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Yecannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakersof the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils (1 Cor 10:20–21).

No Christian should ever be found participating in a religiousfeast in a pagan temple. To do so would be to provoke the Lord to jealousy andwrath (1 Cor 10:22).

Translated to the local context: No Christian should everparticipate in a dinner held in honour of some deity or, more commonly, thefeast of the 7th month festival where the feast are dedicated to ‘ghosts.’

Conclusion

As a young boy, I was always looking forward to the religious dayson the Chinese Lunar Calendar. On such days mum would be unusually kind andgentle to us. But more importantly, she would always prepare a sumptuous feastcomprising many delicious dishes. These dishes were always first offered toeither some deceased ancestors or to some gods. Only after that did we gatheraround the table to eat. The whole family would always enjoy the feast as wehardly got to eat that much or that well on normal days.

One day however, my sister told my mother that she had become aChristian and that she would not eat anything that had been offered to idols.This made mum very angry, and from that day on, there seemed to be no peace inthe family. Mum refused to acknowledge sister as a Christian, and sisterrefused to compromise, choosing at times to fast rather than eat anything thathad been offered. Being an unbeliever then, I had felt that my sister wasdisobedient and unreasonable, and had begun to harbour a rising resentmentagainst her for spoiling the peace in the home. Nevertheless, sister continuedto demonstrate exemplary Christian conduct in the family as far as she could,and soon mum relented. Soon, whenever we had a feast, mum would set aside someportion of the food, that would otherwise have been offered, for my sister. Shewould eat the ‘clean’ food, whereas the rest of us would eat the leftoversafter the idols or ancestors have ‘eaten.’

The situation that we were in was not directly covered by Paul.But was sister right in taking her stand and refusing to eat of the food thathad been offered? I believe so. Though the family feast was not quite areligious feast, we all knew that the food was sacrificed, and as unbelievingchildren we did have a notion that something did happen to the food when theywere offered. If sister had not taken her stand when she did, we would not haveeven thought that Christianity was any different from other religions. But whatshe did provoked us to think and by the grace of God my brothers and Ieventually believed.

May this article and short sharing encourage anyone of us who isin similar situation to do what is right according to the Word of God, and tostand firm as living epistles of Christ. Amen.