home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

self-knowledge, authentic living, full humanity, continual awakening

“knowledge puffs up” (1 Cor. 8:1)

return to the main-page article on "Bible"

Editor’s prefatory comment:

Some decades ago, as part of my “education”, I found myself a member of a certain church.

Several times a year, it seemed, from the pulpit, the pastor would remind the congregation that “God called the foolish and unwise” into the church (I Cor. 1:26-29).

The implication being, “you all out there are not very smart, that’s why you’re here.”

Buttressing his thesis, another verse was sometimes put forward: “knowledge puffs up” (1 Cor. 8:1), with the not-too-subtle message, “don’t try to improve yourself, higher education is all vanity, that’s how Satan gets you.”

Well, I’ve addressed these issues many times on Word Gems – but, during a Great Books review of the works of Rousseau and Montesquieu, new fire was breathed into the truth of the matter.

What I’d like to do for you, the reader, is to go into this with some depth. Allow me to offer:

(1) extended discussion from the Rousseau and Montesquieu book reviews,

(2) an explanation of Paul’s subject matter in I Corinthians, and

(3) my view on “knowledge puffs up” (1 Cor. 8:1).

(1) extended discussion from the Rousseau and Montesquieu book reviews

The following is reprinted from the Great Books pages.

Rousseau's central claim is:

The sciences and arts may refine society's appearance while weakening the character of the people who produce and consume them.

The great conceptual breakthrough is Rousseau's separation of intellectual progress from moral progress.

This seems obvious to us now, but Rousseau makes the separation philosophically dramatic.

A civilization can know more and yet be morally worse.

Ed: You stated “romanticizing simplicity and treating civilization itself as morally suspect.” Many imagine that “knowledge puffs up” and increases pride. That’s sometimes true but the ignorant can be overweeningly proud – and proud of it – The real issue is not more knowledge, more arts and sciences, but what the ego might do with these more advanced tools in its efforts to oppress.

In Montesquieu’s Rome we said that both the Hitler types and despotic pastors might attempt to enslave people; but the former has vastly more resources and is therefore more dangerous.

And so it is with “science and the arts” – these can be used to oppress, but not necessarily so. The enlightened person will know what to do with these augmentations of life.

Chat: Yes. I think this is an important correction and refinement of Rousseau—and it also connects directly with the distinction you drew in our discussion of Montesquieu (1689–1755).

Rousseau's formulation can too easily become:

civilization → knowledge → pride → corruption

But that is too crude. The deeper issue is not the tool but the ego that possesses the tool.

The distinction

Knowledge does not inherently produce pride.

An ignorant person can be extraordinarily proud precisely because ignorance leaves the ego unexamined. Conversely, genuine knowledge can produce humility because the more one understands, the more one recognizes the extent of what one does not understand.

So “knowledge puffs up” should not be treated as a condemnation of knowledge itself. The question is:

What does the person do with the augmentation that knowledge provides?

And that gives us a much stronger interpretation of Rousseau's Discourse on the Sciences and Arts.

The real danger is amplified agency

Your Hitler/pastor analogy makes the point very well.

The underlying egoic impulse to dominate may be substantially the same in both cases. But the resources available to the two individuals are radically different.

A domineering pastor may control:

• a congregation,
• relationships,
• reputation,
• access to information.

A Hitler-type ruler can potentially command:

• a state,
• industrial production,
• bureaucracy,
• communications,
• science,
• weapons,
• mass propaganda.

The latter does not necessarily possess a more evil ego. He possesses vastly more powerful instruments through which an ego can act.

That is the crucial distinction.

And it applies beautifully to science and the arts.

Science is an augmentation of human agency

Science gives humanity extraordinary capacities:

knowledge → prediction → control → amplification of action

Those capacities can be used to heal, build, educate, liberate, and enrich life.

But they can also be used to surveil, manipulate, exploit, indoctrinate, and destroy.

The moral variable is therefore not simply:

How much knowledge do we possess?

but:

What kind of person possesses it, and toward what end does he direct it?

That is a much more sophisticated position than simply romanticizing the primitive or condemning civilization.

This actually strengthens Rousseau's insight

I wouldn't discard Rousseau's criticism. I would move it one level deeper.

Rousseau correctly sees that civilization gives human beings increasingly sophisticated means of pursuing their desires. But the mistake would be to conclude that the sophistication itself is corrupting.

Rather:

Civilization amplifies whatever is already operating in the human agent.

If the governing impulse is domination, technology can make domination more powerful.

If the governing impulse is beneficence, technology can make beneficence more powerful.

If the governing impulse is vanity, the arts can become instruments of vanity.

If the governing impulse is truth, the sciences can become instruments of discovery.

So perhaps the real formula is:

Human capacity × character = consequence.

The greater the capacity, the more important the character.

And this gives us a fascinating bridge between Rousseau and Montesquieu who asks us to look at the structure and scale of power.

Rousseau asks us to look at the human being who possesses that power.

Your synthesis brings them together:

The ego is the constant; the instruments vary.

The more advanced the civilization, the more powerful the instruments become—and therefore the greater the potential consequences of an ungoverned ego.

That means the answer isn't to destroy science and the arts or return to simplicity.

It is to cultivate the enlightened person capable of using these augmentations of life wisely.

And that is, I think, a particularly fruitful way of reading Rousseau without becoming Rousseauian.

His question becomes not:

“Would humanity be better off with less civilization?”

but:

“Can human moral development keep pace with the enormous increase in human power?”

That is a question that remains very much alive.

(2) an explanation of Paul’s subject matter in I Corinthians

Reprinted from https://www.gotquestions.org/knowledge-puffs-up.html

In 1 Corinthians 8:1–13, the apostle Paul responds to a question from the Corinthians regarding meat that had previously been sacrificed to idols. He begins, “Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that ‘We all possess knowledge.’ But knowledge puffs up while love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1).

In first-century Greek culture, pagans participating in ritualistic idol worship offered meat from animals to be burned in temple sacrifices. Only a portion of the meat was used, and the leftovers were typically sold in the market. The Jerusalem Council had banned Christians from eating such foods (Acts 15:29). However, controversy arose in the church based on each believer’s understanding of Christian liberty. Many knew the meat could not be contaminated purely because it had been used in a pagan ritual. The temple idols were false gods and had no power to taint the meat. These Christians felt freedom of conscience to eat the meat, which was likely available to purchase at a reduced market price.

When Paul writes, “We all possess knowledge” and “An idol is nothing at all in the world,” he appears to be quoting lines from an earlier letter written by the Corinthian leaders (see 1 Corinthians 8:1, 4). These leaders were seeking Paul’s counsel to quell the division. Some of the believers in the church—likely those who had been delivered from pagan idolatry—were offended by brothers and sisters in Christ who were eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul tackles a similar issue in Romans 14 and 15. The freedom of strong believers regarding dietary laws and holy days was offending the weaker Christians.

Paul starts his counsel to the Corinthians with this statement: “Knowledge puffs up while love builds up.” “Puffs up” is an English rendering of the Greek verb physioo, meaning “to make proud, to cause to become conceited, as if to inflate something with air.” The New Living Translation renders this statement, “While knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church.”

Earlier, Paul commented on the superior knowledge of the Corinthians: “God has enriched your church in every way—with all of your eloquent words and all of your knowledge” (1 Corinthians 1:5, NLT). It appears the Corinthians may have grown a little too proud of their intellectual prowess. Paul indicates that knowledge itself was not the answer to the division over food sacrificed to idols. The Corinthians could apply all the sophisticated learning they had acquired to the situation, but that would not help. They needed love.

Warren Wiersbe writes, “Knowledge can be a weapon to fight with or a tool to build with, depending on how it is used. If it ‘puffs up’ then it cannot ‘build up [edify]’” (The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1, Victor Books, 1996, p. 595). If our knowledge is not tempered with love, we are simply bloated, puffed-up know-it-alls. Later, Paul expounds on the idea: “If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. . . . If I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge . . . but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1–3, NLT).

Knowledge must be counterbalanced with love to be powerful and effectual (Ephesians 4:15; Philippians 1:9–11). The strong believers, those with the freedom to eat meat, failed to apply their knowledge in love (1 Corinthians 16:14; Colossians 3:14). Instead of strengthening the weak saints and building up the church, the strong Christians were only inflating their egos and creating discord.

Christian freedom must always be accompanied by love and concern for our brothers and sisters in Christ. We do well to remember that knowledge puffs up, whereas love builds up. A genuinely mature believer will lay down his intellectual pride and lovingly humble himself (Romans 14:1). Rather than humiliate or beat down someone weak in faith with logical arguments, we will come alongside to help our brother or sister walk in freedom (1 Thessalonians 5:14). We may even need to sacrifice our Christian freedoms to help prevent a weaker brother from stumbling and falling (1 Corinthians 8:9–12; Romans 15:1–3; 1 Corinthians 10:24; Philippians 2:4).

******************************

The following is commentary by ChatGPT:

ChatGPT: I will comment on 1 Corinthians 1:26–29, rather than something immediately following 8:1.

Paul says:

“For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.” — 1 Corinthians 1:26

And then he sharpens the point:

“God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.” — 1 Corinthians 1:27

The context is particularly relevant to what you were saying about Rousseau and knowledge.

Paul is not saying that Christians should remain ignorant. His contrast is between “the wisdom of the world” and the wisdom disclosed through the Spirit. Indeed, a few verses later he says that Christ has become their “wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:30).

And there is an important sequence in the letter:

1 Corinthians 1:26
Not many of you were wise according to worldly standards.

↓

1 Corinthians 1:27–29
God deliberately works through those whom the world regards as foolish, weak, insignificant.

↓

1 Corinthians 2:6–16
Paul then distinguishes human/worldly wisdom from the wisdom of the Spirit.

↓

1 Corinthians 8:1

“Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.”

So this is pointing toward a very interesting Pauline distinction:

The problem isn't possessing knowledge; it is what the ego does with knowledge.

That fits your observation about Rousseau remarkably well.

Paul himself does not advocate ignorance. In fact, he wants the Corinthians to mature in understanding. The problem is knowledge detached from love, because knowledge can become an occasion for self-exaltation.

The very next verse makes the corrective explicit:

“Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know.” — 1 Corinthians 8:2

That is almost a direct antidote to intellectual pride.

And this makes your earlier point particularly strong: the ignorant person can be just as egotistical as the learned person. Knowledge doesn't create the ego; it gives the ego additional instruments.

Paul's answer isn't:

Know less.

It is closer to:

Know—but let love govern what you do with what you know.

That is very close to the formulation you just gave regarding science and the arts: the enlightened person knows how to use the augmentation of human power without allowing the ego to turn it into an instrument of domination.

(3) my view on “knowledge puffs up” (1 Cor. 8:1)

The above Bible explanation of Corinthians is fairly good.

Some of the newer, superstitious church members thought that meat sacrificed to a pagan idol now carried some sort of curse, and so they wouldn’t buy this “blessed by the pagan priest” meat at the shop.

The old-hands in the church snickered at, what they considered to be, small-mindedness. They knew the pagan priest couldn’t harm the meat. But they weren’t shy about making the new unknowledgeable Christian feel inferior.

These arrogant ones are Paul’s poster-kids for the “puffed up”. They had a little bit of knowledge, and now they thought they were better.

And the Bible commentary is right – the antidote is to mix knowledge with love. If the experienced Christians had found it within themselves to think about how all this might affect the green and uninitiated, they would have acted more considerately.

So, what’s not to like about this explanation?

The explanation is good, as far as it goes, but it’s a solution that doesn’t fit all circumstances.

We need a better general rule.

What do I mean by this?

The above situation occurred between two parties – those who knew and those who didn’t.

But I think we all know that it’s quite possible to slip into a mindset of arrogance, all by yourself, alone in a room, with no one else around or even involved.

We can imagine ourselves better or superior or “I’m not like those others” even when there’s no one handy to ridicule.

And so, if love is the universal antidote to pride, what about those situations when there’s no one else to put down?

Love is one way to enter humility, but it’s not the universalized way.

We need to go deeper on this.

Entering a level of consciousness wherein one is ‘puffed up’, seeing oneself as master of the universe, ‘the rules don’t apply to me’, can happen all by your lonesome.

This commonly happens in materialistic science. The researcher doesn’t like the idea of “Intelligent Design”, and so he or she promotes a theory, for which there is no evidence, but it's applauded because it circumvents the annoying inference that “the complex universe couldn’t have happened by accident.”

See much discussion on the “evolution” and “quantum” pages.

I am touching on a huge subject here. We’re talking about existential pride – not petty little squabbles in the meat market.

The kind of pride that, upon one’s transition from mortal life, will send one to Dark Detention in the next.worlds.

Much could be said here, but it’s already been laid out on a thousand Word Gems pages.

I said we need to go deeper.

How to handle these heavy-duty versions of “knowledge puffs up”?

Only one thing will serve as remedy. We are required to seek for an elevated level of consciousness.

One needs to “go within” and find one’s link to God.

This is the true and universalized antidote to arrogance. It addresses all circumstances.

Once we “make contact” with “God within”, then it’s not possible to be arrogant.