21 Knowledge Makes Arrogant: What Paul Teaches About Being Right (1 Corinthians 8:1-3)

Krisan Marotta: Good morning. My name is Krisan Marotta, and you're listening to Wednesday in the Word, my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. Today we're studying 1 Corinthians 8, verses 1 through 3. This is the 21st talk in our series on 1 Corinthians. As always, you can follow along with the lecture notes by going to the link below this podcast, or you can find them on my website. Go to wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 2.1. And while you're there, take a moment to check out all the free materials on the website. There is no charge, no spam, and no ads, only Bible study. Let's get started. If you're just joining us in this series, let me give you a brief review of what Corinthians is about. Paul, the Apostle Paul, wrote this letter. He founded the church in Corinth during what we call his second missionary journey, and he lived in Corinth for about a year and a half. He is writing this letter during what we call his third missionary journey, and he is writing from Ephesus. The Corinthians have written Paul a letter which we don't have, and Paul is responding to that letter and to a verbal report that he received about all the things that were going on in Corinth. So in the first four chapters of the letter, Paul responded to that verbal report. And he has a rather contentious relationship with the church in Corinth. Some in that church have decided that Paul does not have wisdom as they define it, and they have gone so far as to reject his authority as an apostle, and that's the main issue he deals with in the first four chapters. Then in chapters five and six, he rebukes them for not dealing with a situation that is blatantly sinful and going on in their church. And in chapter seven, he starts answering the specific questions that they have asked him. So you'll notice seven one begins now concerning the things about which you wrote. And we will keep seeing that phrase coming up throughout the book, now concerning. And that signals that he is starting a new section or a new question. Now we have Paul's answers, but we don't have the questions the Corinthians asked. So we have to guess. It's like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We have to kind of figure out what's going on on the other end of the line. And how you understand the question that they're asking greatly influences how you understand Paul's answer. So we have to figure that out from context and what we know of the historical situation. And these questions that the Corinthians are asking are not philosophical, theoretical issues. They are real problems that are causing divisions and strife in their church. So these are not the questions of hypothetically how would you handle this, the kind of thing you might debate over a cup of coffee. These are real issues the church is struggling with, and they've asked Paul to weigh in. Chapter eight starts the second question that he addresses, and his answer to this question is going to run through chapter ten. At least in my opinion, I think chapters eight through ten are one unit and one coherent argument. Even though it may seem like he switched subjects at times, I think he's still answering this question. So the question he's addressing now is is it okay to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols? Some in the Corinthian church feel strongly that it is okay to eat such meat, and others feel strongly that it's not okay, and they want Paul to settle the issue. And they are looking at each other with some measure of derision and suspicion, and Paul is going to address not only the issue of what they should and shouldn't eat, but also their attitude toward each other and the way they're treating each other in this dispute. Now I think it's probably safe to say that none of you listening to this podcast are struggling with the issue of whether or not you should eat meat sacrificed to idols. In fact, I bet none of you has been offered any meat sacrificed to an idol lately, and you're probably wondering, can't we just skip this section and move on to something a little more relevant? Well, that raises the question, what are we supposed to do with a letter that addresses a problem that we don't have anymore? How is that important or relevant to us? I think it's relevant because Paul was an apostle. He is one of a handful of individuals who were inspired with accurate and profound understanding of the gospel. He is one of a handful of people that God chose to speak for him. God called him, God chose him, God taught him such that Paul knows what he's talking about. He has been given an understanding that matches God's understanding. So when he explains an issue we want to pay attention. He is addressing this issue of meat sacrifice to idols out of that inspired understanding. What we want to learn from Paul is how does he understand the world? What did he think was true and important? What principles did he use to settle this issue? How did he understand this life? And once we have that understanding, we can apply it to the situations that we face today. So here's our job as modern Bible students. First, we want to understand the issue. What was the situation that Paul was addressing, and we want to figure that out as clearly as we can. Then we want to understand his answer. What in fact did he say to them? How did he respond? And as we wrestle with that, we want to try to understand why he said what he said. What principles and truths led Paul to reach the conclusions that he reached? Why would he tell them to do X and not Y? Sometimes Paul tells us plainly why he's giving the instruction he gives, and sometimes he doesn't. We have to work to figure it out. Only after all of that process do we want to then try to answer the question, so what or what does this mean for me today? And we want to apply those principles and those truths to the issues that we face now. Now this process takes work and we're not going to get very far today. His answer covers the next three chapters, and it's going to seem like we're dealing with issues that are not immediately relevant to us, but we'll get there. In fact, I think the lessons we're ultimately going to learn from this section are incredibly profound. Because I'm going to argue that this section is not just about meat sacrificed to idols, it's about our attitudes, our values, it's about the relationship between freedom and responsibility and truth and knowledge and love. And even though the surface issue of meat sacrifice to idols seems remote and not applicable to us, if we can learn why Paul says what he says, we will come away with truths that we can apply to just about any situation we face today. Now we're not going to get very far into the argument today because I want to look carefully at how he opens the topic. Let's read chapter 8, verses 1 through 3. Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he is not yet known as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by him. So Paul starts out telling us that the issue is food that has been sacrificed to idols. But notice he's not talking about idols and he's not talking about food. He starts out talking about knowledge. And I think that's significant, and we want to ask why. Why in a discussion of the merits of meat sacrifice to idols does Paul start with this statement, we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. And what I think is going on is that it is the use of knowledge that is at the heart of Paul's argument. So let me set up the issue for us. At the time Paul's writing, Corinth had various temples to a variety of pagan gods, and people would come to these temples and make offerings of meat. Well what happened to the meat after that? The pagan gods are not there to actually eat it, so what happened to it after the rituals were complete? Well, some of it was burnt up in the offering, and some of it was sold in the marketplace. And in fact, some historians think that almost all the meat or a lot of the meat that was in the marketplace came from meat that was offered in pagan temples first. Furthermore, there's some evidence that some of the pagan temples had dining rooms and that members of the community would eat together in these dining rooms, kind of like going out to eat at a restaurant. Only this room was connected with the temple, and everyone knew it was a communal meal celebrating whatever pagan deity that temple served. So it was a religious event, but it was also a social event. You would see your friends and your neighbors at these meals in the dining room of the temple. Now many of the believers in the church in Corinth were Gentiles. Before converting to Christianity, pagan worship would have been a regular part of their lives. They would have lots of experience with offering meat in the temples and then eating these communal meals. They would have been in the habit of participating in these rituals and eating at the temple, and for many they were a social event as well as a religious event, and something they probably grew up doing and had done all their lives. So now that they've come to faith, the question is, do we need to stop that practice? What needs to change? And some of the new believers have rightly argued, look, these idols are not real. There's no one really there. They don't exist. Meat that's been sacrificed to idols is just meat. It's not contaminated. It won't turn you into a pagan by eating it, it's just meat, and we are free to eat it. We're free to buy it at the meat market and we're free to eat it. And some of the comments Paul makes indicate that they also feel free to go to the temple dining rooms and eat the meat there. We know these idols don't exist, we're going to go and eat and see our friends and enjoy the meal. It doesn't mean anything to us, it's just meat. Others in the community don't feel this freedom. They argue that to participate in these meals or to buy meat at the marketplace is to participate in and support the practice of idolatry, which of course is something we should avoid. Participating in any part of this idol's rituals is idolatry and it would be wrong to participate. And that's the issue dividing the church. Now the argument of those who feel free to participate is that we know the idols aren't real. Yes, those pagans participating still think that the deities are real, but we know better. We know there's only one God, and he is not the god of that temple. We know that we are not worshiping a real being, we are not intending to worship other gods. Now, if we were intending to worship another god, that would be wrong, but that's not our intention. We're not going there to worship. We're going there to eat, and we know there is no god there to worship, we're just going for a meal. This is just plain old regular meat. The fact that it was offered to an idol before it was placed on my table doesn't change anything. It's just meat. I have knowledge, I know what I'm doing. I know there is no real God behind that idol, and in my knowledge of what is true, I have the freedom to eat this meat because there's nothing wrong with the meat. Worshiping idols is wrong, but eating meat is not wrong, and I know all that I'm doing is eating meat. It is their knowledge that makes it okay to eat the meat. It is their accurate understanding of what they are doing that gives them the freedom to eat meat. I think that's why Paul starts his answer by addressing knowledge. He's responding to their argument that their knowledge that the idols are fake gives them the freedom to eat the meat. They know what's really going on. Their knowledge is the basis for their decision to act a certain way, and they know that the idols are not real gods, so they can eat the meat. Paul is going to argue that the knowledge that I am free to eat the meat is not enough. I must also ask what effect my freedom has on others. Now you may be familiar with what we call the argument of the weaker brother, and this is where Paul's going to go in this section. What sort of obligation do I have to make sure that I don't confuse or cause another to stumble? Even though I know the truth, even though I have the freedom to act a certain way, what should I do in light of the fact that others don't share that knowledge or understand that freedom? How do I decide what to do? Well, that's where we're going to go, but we're not going to get there today. Today I want to look at what he says about knowledge, and we'll get to the weaker brother argument in the next podcast. Basically, Paul's going to say, There's more at stake here than freedom. I can't elevate my knowledge of my rights above my obligation to love my brother or sister. So knowledge of my freedom is not enough. Let me read eight one through three again, and then we're going to talk about some of these phrases. Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he is not yet known as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by him. So let's start with this phrase we know that we all have knowledge. I suspect that Paul is responding to their argument. They're saying we know the truth, we know it's just meat. We know these are false gods, and we know that we don't intend to worship them by eating this meat, and we are perfectly within our rights and we know it. And Paul's responding, yes, we all have knowledge. We all know that the idols are fake. On that point we agree. But knowledge is not the only factor here. So notice he is not arguing that their knowledge is wrong. He agrees with them on the facts of the situation. He shares their perspective on what is true, that it's just meat and the idols are nothing, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with eating the meat. But he's going to go on to say there's more at stake than knowledge. But first he says knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. So knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. And this is one of those catchphrases that gets quoted and framed and put on pillows and walls. But we want to make sure that we understand it in the context of the argument that Paul is making. Some have taken this phrase and argued that Paul is dismissing knowledge and asking us to put love in its place. They would claim Paul is arguing that we should just forget about theology, we should stop trying to wrestle with these deep issues, and we should just ignore doctrine, maybe even stop reading scripture, and instead we should just love one another. As if knowledge and love are mutually exclusive and you can only choose between them, you can't have them both. So they would argue, in a sense, you can only do one or the other. And if you seek to know and understand, that's going to make you arrogant. So clearly you need to choose love, because love builds others up. And which do you want? Do you want to be arrogant or do you want to encourage others? Those are your only options. Well, I don't think those are our only options. And if Paul really believed that there was a disconnect between love and knowledge, why would he bother to write this letter? Or any of his letters, particularly one like Romans. Paul imparts a great deal of knowledge in this letter and in his others' letters, and why would he do that if he thinks that knowledge is unimportant and only leads to arrogance? Paul makes rather sophisticated and rational and complex arguments in this letter and they are intended to persuade the Corinthians about what is true. He wants them to know the difference between truth and error, between right and wrong, and to be able to live their lives in light of that truth. If, as some claim, that Paul is making an argument against knowledge and in favor of love and pitting them against each other, then he's making a rational argument against the value of rational arguments. And that makes no sense. So we want to keep this verse in the context of the argument he's making. I don't think Paul intends to make a sweeping generalization that knowledge forever and always in all forms and all circumstances leads to arrogance, but loves builds up, so stop pursuing knowledge and theology. That's not what he's saying. Remember the situation that Paul is addressing. Some in Corinth are saying I am perfectly justified in eating whatever I want to eat because I have knowledge. I rightly understand what is true, and therefore I am free to eat this meat. I know that the idols are fake. My knowledge is superior to yours. You think eating meat is wrong, but I know it's right. My knowledge is better than yours, and I'm better off because I know better than you what is right and what is wrong. I know that this is right, and I'm going to eat it because I know there's nothing wrong with eating it, but you're still confused. You're wrong, I'm right, I know this is true, get over it. That's the kind of knowledge Paul's talking about, the kind of knowledge that becomes the justification for me doing what I want to do despite the consequences. And Paul is going to argue that even though their knowledge is accurate, their behavior is having destructive consequences. So those who know they are free to eat meat, let's call them the free thinkers. The free thinkers in the Corinthian church are motivated by two things. They want to eat whatever they want to eat, and they have the knowledge that they're free to eat it. So they want to eat the meat sacrificed to the idols, and they know that they can, and they think that their knowledge gives them permission to do exactly what they want to do. What they have not asked themselves is how do my actions affect my brother? Should I refrain from eating the meat, even though I want to eat it and I'm free to eat it, because it's more important that I love my brother. So Paul is talking about knowledge that serves my self-interest, knowledge that makes me think I'm superior to those who lack my knowledge, and that's the kind of knowledge that puffs up. If my only concern in the situation is I know better than you, that can lead to arrogance. By contrast, love is concerned with more than who's right and who's wrong. If my only concern is knowledge, then I can say I'm right and I'll do whatever I want. But if my concern includes love, then I can say I am right, but ask the next question, what will result from me exercising my freedom? What are the consequences to those who are watching me? Love means I'm not merely concerned with who's right and who's wrong, I'm also concerned with the impact my choices are having. Okay, so let's keep that in mind and read verses two and three again. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he is not yet known as he ought to know, but if anyone loves God, he is known by him. He starts if anyone supposes that he knows anything. Well that kind of seems to apply to everyone. We all think we know something, especially the biblical authors. They present themselves as knowing the truth that God has revealed, and they claim to be able to speak for Jesus Christ, to tell you accurately what he thought and what he taught. And Paul's letters read like someone who believes that what he knows is true, and if you think differently, you are wrong and Paul is right. That's the way Paul writes, that's the way Jesus talked. All the biblical authors present themselves as knowing the truth in opposition to other perspectives which are far. False I don't think Paul is claiming here that it's wrong to think that you know the truth, and neither is he claiming that there is no truth to know. He's not claiming knowledge is an illusion. He's addressing the attitude that says, I can ignore you because I know the truth. I'm right, you're wrong, get over it. If anyone thinks he knows something, that is, if anyone thinks he's superior because of his knowledge, if anyone thinks he's justified in doing what he wants to do because he knows it's right, or anyone who has that kind of smug idea that I have the right to do this and that justifies all my behavior in all circumstances, it's that kind of arrogant attitude that Paul has in mind. So if anyone has that kind of arrogant attitude, he has not yet known as he ought to know. I think the idea there is he is not yet using his knowledge as God intended his knowledge to be used. So he is misusing knowledge. He is not yet known as he ought to know, he has not yet done what he ought to do with that knowledge. But if anyone loves God, he is has been known by him. Let's look at that phrase. The free thinkers in Corinth say, I know it's all right to eat this meat because I have true knowledge about God. I know that the idols are fake. I know that the God of Jesus Christ is the one true God and the author and creator of the universe. I know better than to think that there is some idol accepting this meat. I know God. Paul is making the contrast. Okay, you know God, but do you love him? Do you want to be like him? Do you value what he values? Are you seeking him and trying to live the way he says we ought to live? And do you love the things of God, including his people? You may know about God, but the one who knows God and seeks after him has done you one better because he knows more than that God exists, he strives to follow him and to be like him, and more importantly, God knows him. Paul adds that phrase is kind of an ironic twist. The real important issue is not whether I know all the facts about God and have accurate theology. The more important issue is whether God knows me and I am his. Am I one of his children? Am I one in whom his spirit is working? The phrase for God to know someone usually refers to being one of God's people, and I think that's what Paul means here. It doesn't mean that God knows you exist, but rather that you belong to him. He has chosen you, you are one of his people. So the contrast is between knowing about God and loving God, knowing about God and belonging to him and being one of his people. The free thinkers are boasting that they are right. They don't have to listen to anyone else because they are right. They don't need to consider those who disagree with them. And we'll see that they are in fact right. Their facts are straight, but they are using that right to ignore the consequences of their actions, and that's what Paul is questioning them on. He's saying, Do you really love the God you say you know? Your actions are kind of a red flag that you don't really love God. You may have all the facts correct, but do you love him? Do you want to be holy as he is holy? Do you want to love what he loves, including his people? So they know about God, but they don't seem to love their neighbor as themselves, one of the key things God would ask them to do. So they know about God, but the way they're responding to those who disagree with him indicates that they don't really love God or their brothers. So I would paraphrase these verses something like this. Now concerning your question regarding meat sacrifice to idols, I know that some of you are justifying your behavior by saying you know all about the idols and that everyone knows the idols are fake. While I grant you the truth of that, such knowledge is not enough. Thinking that you're superior because of your knowledge only inflates your opinion of yourselves, whereas love, which is our true calling, is intended to build up others. If anyone thinks he knows the truth and is therefore justifying in ignoring and disrespecting those who disagree with him and doing whatever he wants, he is not using his knowledge in the way God intends. But if anyone loves God as opposed to just knowing about God, then not only does he know God, but more importantly, God knows him. So let me try to wrap all this up and put it together. Paul is exploring the relationship between knowledge and arrogance, the love of God and loving my brother. And he's giving an important warning here. There's a distinction between understanding theology and personal submission to God. Theology can be correct, but it can be incomplete, and I think that's what's happening to some in Corinth. The free thinkers are boasting in their knowledge, but we could appropriately say there's a sense in which they don't know enough because they're not using that knowledge in the right way. Knowledge is useless unless it leads to humility and faith and humbly seeking God. Knowledge by itself does not save you. Doctrine doesn't save you, theology doesn't save you. What saves you is faith, humbly acknowledging your need for God's mercy and grace and the rescue that He is bringing in Jesus Christ. Being right does not make you righteous or forgiven. Being right does not justify you before God, and being right does not make you holy or spiritual. We are justified by the blood of Christ, and we will be made holy by the Spirit of God changing us from the inside out. Yes, part of what the Spirit does is enlighten us, open our eyes so that we gain understanding and knowledge, but it is the blood of Christ and the grace of God and the activity of the Holy Spirit that brings all that about. Without that, without the blood of Christ and the grace of God, knowledge is worthless. So I would say Paul is not pitting knowledge and love against each other. You can have both. In fact, you need to have both. Ultimately, knowing and proclaiming the truth can be part of loving someone. We are called to speak the truth in love to each other. We are called to seek the truth together. It's not loving to let someone trot off to hell without saying a word. It's not loving to let someone continue in sin and ignorance when God has given us a measure of the truth. So it's important to make the distinction between truth and error and to know the truth and to know truth from lies, but we need to be aware how easily we can turn that distinction into arrogance. Whenever you say this is truth, it's really tempting to follow it up with, hey, and I'm the one that figured it out, not you. Even if we don't say it, we can think it, we can believe that that knowledge makes us better. And that's where we have to remember we are all sinners in need of grace and mercy. Any truth we know is a gift of God through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Any truth we know is because God in His mercy has opened our eyes to it and given us the understanding, not because we're so smart or such hot stuff. So I think we need to take seriously what Paul says here in this section and try to learn the proper relationship between love and knowledge and seek to live that out. Paul is not anti-theology. Paul's against using theology to justify selfishness or pride. You've been listening to the Wednesday in the Word podcast, my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. If you've been blessed by listening, please leave a positive rating and a review wherever you listen to your podcast. And don't forget to share what you've learned with a friend. Our theme music is graciously provided by Reggie Coates of Heartfeltmusic.org. He is my favorite musician, and I encourage you to listen to his other songs. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I'll meet you here next week at Wednesday in the Word.