1Cor 8:1-3 - Will the Real Idol Please Stand?

1-3 Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." This "knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.

Paul is about to answer another question that was probably put to him by letter preceding his visit. He seems to be aware that there is a faction that is outwardly centred around the question of eating meat offered to idols. It looks like a perfect example of where being right is not enough of itself. It’s not good to be wrong, but it’s also not good to be right in the wrong way, or for the wrong reasons over matters "indifferent".

Yet it is not hard to imagine the spiritually "informed" snorting at the dumbness of the idea that things offered to idols are actually unclean. Of course they aren’t, because we all "know" that idols are just the inanimate creations of men’s hands. But we don’t actually all know that fact in the same way. To have knowledge and to hold that knowledge in a clear conscience do not always coincide. Information itself is not understanding. The concept that idols are nothing is a long way from believing that they are nothing.

But human nature is such that pride is always waiting at the door. The moment we think we know anything then that very knowledge is liable to become an idol in its own right to us. So people enlightened enough to have freedom in the area of certain things are always only a hair’s breadth away from thinking themselves superior to those who have not yet realized such freedom.

But before going on we ought to make a sharp distinction in order to avoid falling off the other side of Luther’s horse on the question of knowledge. Nowhere in the Bible, and especially not here, is it even suggested that knowledge itself is a bad thing. Knowledge is, in fact, a very desirable thing if it forms the basis of wisdom. Without knowledge we cannot know or relate to God at all. So when the Bible states that "knowledge puffs up" it doesn’t imply that there is an inherent quality in knowledge that is damaging to the soul. Quite the contrary, there is an inherent quality in the soul that is damaging to knowledge. We can misinterpret, misapply, twist and even alter information to suit our own purposes.

Humility is the rarest and hardest learned of all the virtues. That is because it must ultimately be unaware of itself. So humility does not come by thinking of acquiring it, or striving to become less - it comes in a quite unexpected way - by utter forgetfulness. A mind occupied with serving others in Truth for Christ’s sake is humble in the moments when that is happening. Which is why Paul is drawing this dichotomy right up front between mere knowledge and the appropriate use of knowledge.

If we deceive ourselves into thinking we know something that we can impart to other people - something that makes us better than them (even if they later come to the same understanding as we because, after all, didn’t we know it before they did?) - we are likely to go about things in entirely the wrong way. And that is probably our first instinct. We can deceive ourselves in all kinds of ways into thinking we are speaking or acting for the good of our hearers (or, should we say, victims) when we are, in truth, merely bragging or moralizing or posturing in subtle ways.

Like Paul, we should be as harmless as doves when it comes to those with a profession of faith - as those for whom Christ died - and treat them gently with regard to working out their salvation. But when it comes to a matter of the undeniable truths of the gospel we should be fierce and uncompromising lions, ready to rebuke and correct with all dispatch at the first sign of corruption.

So here, Paul is about to embark upon the resolution of a pastoral issue and not a doctrine related to the fundamentals of the gospel. And the resolution lies not in the waving of mere knowledge in the face of those with a problem, but in the recognition of them as people who are working through an issue in the fullness of God’s time. The answer in such a case is not browbeating, but a love that gives room for the Spirit to educate the mind and change the disposition on a matter.

And thus the over arching principle of love is brought into the discussion by Paul. Love must be the underlying motivation for resolving problems and for imparting instruction and correction in the church. So long as it is equally understood that love can bend over backwards or it can rebuke, according to the situation. Both forbearance and discipline can be expressions of love; both patience and rebuke can have the best interest of the receiver in mind.

Knowledge is not what we think it is. It is not something we possess as an asset that gives credit to our person for diligence or effort or simply for innate intelligence. To put it this way is counter intuitive, but it is true. We must be diligent in pursuing knowledge; we must expend effort in order to do so - and we alone are culpable if we fail in these respects. But when knowledge comes as a result of these things we do not take credit for the information itself just because we have grasped it. All truth comes from God who is the Truth - and information or knowledge is, in its most perfect form, simply the truth about what is.

This is why Paul speaks of us "not knowing as we ought to know" as soon as we think we know. There is One who knows and that is God. He knows all things exhaustively and perfectly - including us. We do not even know ourselves. But God knows not only us, but Himself with infinite and unblemished clarity. The point is that, next to God’s perfect understanding, our light is limited, derivative and dependant upon Him.

So what does it mean that "if anyone loves God, he is known by God?" Obviously it cannot mean that God does not have perfect knowledge of those who do not love Him. And it does not mean that we somehow imbue or enable or permit God to have perfect knowledge of us when we "deign" to love Him. No! What comes first? Is it love for God or is it being known by God?

Could we not more properly take this to say that "if anyone is known by God, He loves God?" How can I say this when the Bible puts the words the other way round? I can because the Bible uses the word "knows" in a very special way when it relates to God’s people. In their case the "knowing" (or Greek ginosko) carries the sense of intimacy. For the believer, to be "known" by God is similar to the way Adam "knew" his wife. It doesn’t just mean that they were acquainted, but there was an intimate relationship of the very deepest and most personal sort.

Thus God both foreknows (proginosko) and knows (ginosko) His people. He loves them first. Before they are even born He has loved them with an everlasting love, knowing all that they will be and do from the moment of their birth to their physical death. He has covenanted to a union with them in His Son, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. And it is because of this covenant that His people ultimately come to love Him. "All that the Father gives to me shall come to me..." {Joh 6:37, 44} Thus, "if anyone loves God, he is known by Him."