subject: The Illusion Of Knowledge [print this page] "But concerning the sacrifices to idols, we know that we all have knowledge" (1 Corinthians 8:1). The context, "sacrifices to idols," involves holiday meals that were consecrated by false gods and celebrated by most everyone in the community. These religious and social events provided all of the usual friendship, fellowship and family time together that was and is still enjoyed by people all over the world. Who can argue against the values and virtues of friendship, fellowship and family?
Yet, new Christians in Corinth began to worry that the consecration of the food at such events by what they now understood in the light of Christ to be false gods might be offensive or counterproductive to their new faith in Christ. It's a real concern because all genuine converts gain a new sensitivity about offending Christ and a genuine concern for growing in grace and spiritual maturity. Understandably, people don't want to put stumbling blocks in their own way.
They began asking if it was okay to join in such celebrations because they all had friends and family members who would host such events and would (and did) invite them to attend. No doubt, they had been attending such events for years prior to their conversion, so their sudden absence would be a concern to those friends and family members who expected them to attend. That is the context of this chapter. They were concerned that such events constituted false worship or worship of false gods. In any case it is important to see that worship was the central concern.
The first thing that Paul addressed was "knowledge." No doubt, all the various religious sects and their many philosophies taught some form of knowledge as the first step toward God. We know that the various Gnostics placed such importance upon special or secret knowledge. They taught that worshiping or understanding God required some special knowledge, and apart from that knowledge people were ignorant of things divine.
Note that Paul is still talking about his first consideration regarding the Corinthians -- "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:17-18). Though the words "knowledge" and "wisdom" are different, Paul was still talking about the same subject -- the deceit of worldly wisdom, knowledge or Greek categories of thought.
Paul has been trying to demonstrate that there are two distinct and opposing kinds of knowledge or wisdom. The English Standard Version translates the verse well, "If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know" (v. 2). Other translations use the word "think" -- "If anyone thinks that he knows something." Matthew Henry makes the point that Paul was arguing against those whose knowledge had been gained by experience. Those who had practiced divine "knowledge" believed that they were in a superior position because they relied upon their own personal experience. They were probably arguing that Paul didn't know what he was talking about because he was not a practitioner of such "knowledge." So, how could he know about something with which he had no experience? It is a familiar argument.
Kent Hovind dealt with it well when he shared a similar argument that is used to justify the use of drugs and alcohol. He says that it is not necessary to get run over by a truck in order to know that getting run over by a truck is not a good thing. It is a simple argument, and points to the false understanding that personal experience is required for knowledge to be true. Personal experience might enhance one's knowledge, and then again it just might skew genuine knowledge because personal experience is dependent upon one's own subjectivity. Again, subjectivity is not a problem unless it is confused with objectivity, which is a common problem.
A good example of this kind of confusion is found in the saying, "love is blind." The subjectivity, hope and pleasure of romantic involvement changes the way we see things. Of course the saying refers to romantic attachment and not to godly love. For we know that God is love and God is not blind. Nonetheless, those who find themselves romantically attached to a person (or thing) often justify their attachment in some amazingly creative ways. Dennis Peacocke says it this way, "the mind justifies what the heart chooses." People can justify anything because the mind naturally conforms itself to the desires of the heart.
Paul said that people who get imagination and knowledge confused don't know a thing as they ought. He suggested that there is a proper or better kind of knowledge than knowledge based on experience. And what might that be?
Knowledge based upon Christ, upon Scripture. Why is it better? Because it is not based on or dependent on our own limited subjectivity. It is not based upon our own desires. Rather, biblical knowledge is based on the knowledge of God and interpreted or understood through the eyes of faithful Christians over thousands of years in many different cultural contexts. Biblical knowledge is as close as we human beings can come to absolute objectivity. This is the knowledge that all people ought to know. The word "ought" implies something that is morally superior. Paul is, in fact, suggesting that biblical knowledge is superior knowledge, superior to personal experience.
