True Spiritual Knowledge: Difference between revisions

:''If anyone loves [God],

:''this is known [by God].

 

Not so, says Paul, and his qualification is a particularly powerful statement about the basic nature of Christian ethics. All the more so if the Corinthians themselves had used the word “build up”35 in their own slogans, a suggestion made the more plausible by the use of that term in 8:10 and 10:23. They would have urged that by following conduct based on knowledge believers would be “built up” in their exousia (rights, freedom; 8:10).36 Thus for them “knowledge builds up.” If so, then Paul is turning all this in on them. Not only does knowledge not “build up,” it “puffs up” the individual (v. 1b) and “destroys” others (v. 11); and exousia is not the final goal of Christian ethics, but what is “beneficial” and “constructive” is (10:23). The problem with conduct predicated on knowledge is that it results in even greater sinfulness. Knowledge leads to pride; it “puffs up” (cf. 4:6, 18; 5:2).37 But that is not true of “love.”38 Not only is love “not puffed up” (13:4, the final occurrence of this word in the letter), but quite the opposite, it “builds up.” The aim of Christian ethics is not Stoic self-sufficiency, which requires proper knowledge; rather, its aim is the benefit and advantage of a brother or sister. Thus it is the opposite of their behavior in vv. 7–12, which sets a stumbling block before others.39

With either reading the meaning of the first clause (v. 2) is basically the same. The addition of “something,” however, tends to put the emphasis on the content of what is known. The “omission,” which is more likely original, places the emphasis on the fact of having knowledge as such. The perfect tense of the infinitive implies that they consider themselves to have arrived as far as knowledge is concerned. Paul’s point, therefore, is not that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” (which is usually true, and does fit their situation); rather, it is biting irony. The one who thinks he is “in the know” by that very fact has given evidence that he does not yet have the real thing. Like the person who “thinks he is wise” (3:18), the one who thinks he has knowledge is self-deceived; true knowledge has eluded him. Thus the clause “he does not yet know as he ought to know” does not refer to some lack of content, but to the lack of real gnōsis itself, which, as the next clause (v. 3) points out, has to do with love.

That leads to the real problem with the standard text of v. 3, which seems to deflect Paul’s point. He is not here dealing with loving (or knowing) God.43 Rather, his concern is with their failure to act in love toward some in their midst who do not share their “knowledge.” The standard text, it should be pointed out, does indeed reflect Paul’s theology of God’s prior action in our behalf. That is, our love of God is predicated on God’s prior knowledge of us. The problem is in finding a satisfactory reason for him to have said that here.44 On the other hand, the text of Clement and P46 reflects exactly the point of the contrast. True gnōsis consists not in the accumulation of so much data, nor even in the correctness of one’s theology, but in the fact that one has learned to live in love toward all. The final verb may be either middle or passive. If middle it suggests that the person who loves “has reached the fullness of gnosis”;45 if passive it suggests that the person who loves is the one who is truly “known,” that is “recognized” by God as having knowledge. In either case, this shorter text brings Paul’s point home so powerfully that it is most likely what he originally wrote.

But why does Paul begin his response to the matter of idol meat in this way? Probably because he does basically agree with the theological premises that he will next take up—although he will have his own unique way of qualifying these as well. But he knows that what they are doing with their knowledge is dead wrong; and this is the more serious problem. So he begins by qualifying their understanding of gnōsis itself. Christian behavior is not predicated on the way of knowledge, which leads to pride and destroys others, but on the way of love, which is in fact the true way of knowledge. All of this will be spelled out in greater detail in vv. 7–13, and especially in chap. 13.46

The tyranny of “knowledge” as the basis of Christian ethics has a long and unfortunate history in the church, from which most likely few who read—as well as the one who writes—this commentary are exempt. Once one’s theology is properly in hand, it is especially tempting to use it as a club on others. And in this case, it happens from the theological right as well as from the left. This does not mean that knowledge is either irrelevant or unimportant, but it does mean that it cannot serve as the primary basis of Christian behavior. In Christian ethics “knowledge” must always lead to love. One should always beware of those teachers or systems that entice one by special “revelation” or “deeper insights.” Such appeals are invariably to one’s pride, not to one’s becoming a more truly loving Christian. While it is true that “insight” often leads to “freedom,” it is also true that it often results finally in the demand for “freedom” in the form of “rights.” This is what had happened at Corinth. In the Christian faith “knowledge” or “insight” is never an end in itself; it is only a means to a greater end, the building up of others.<ref>Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 363-69 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987).</ref>