Acknowledgment. (2) - by Charles H. Welch

#2. Epignosis and Epiginosko 

refer to acknowledgment 

rather than added knowledge. 

When it is true that “all the heart” is engaged with the things of God the normal outward expression will be an acknowledgment of Him in “all our ways”. This close association of “heart” and “way” is very clearly seen in Psalm cxix.: 

“The undefiled in the WAY . . . . . seek Him with the whole HEART” (1, 2). 

The question: 

“Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his WAY?”

is followed by the statement: 

“With my whole HEART have I sought Thee” (9, 10). 

Again the Psalmist says: 

“I will run the WAY of Thy commandments, when Thou shalt enlarge my HEART” (32).

In the next stanza we read: 

“Teach me, O Lord, the WAY of Thy statutes.” 

and its echo:--

“Give me understanding, and I shall keep Thy law; yea I shall observe it with my whole HEART” (33, 34). 

And yet again:-- 

“Incline my HEART unto Thy testimonies . . . . . quicken Thou me in Thy WAYS” (36, 37). 

So in verse fifty-eight we have the “whole heart” followed in verse fifty-nine by “I thought on my ways”. 

Many other examples could be brought forward to emphasize the close connection between “heart” and “ways”, but the foregoing will suffice. 

To an English ear, the word “acknowledge” conveys the idea of “confession”. Another rendering that would perhaps be truer to the original would be “recognize”. It is a blessed thing to be sensitive to the presence and work of the Lord; to be able to “recognize” Him in the dark as well as in the light; in the difficult path as well as in the hour of triumph. When one is able thus to “recognize” Him the direction of our pathway will follow as a matter of course. 

It is interesting to know that the LXX version uses the word orthotomeo “rightly divide”, where the English version reads “direct”. This is an important factor in the true interpretation of II Tim. ii. 15 for the word would be immediately recognized by Timothy as one with which his early training had made him familiar, and thus would understand the practical necessity to follow the Divinely appointed finger-posts regarding dispensational truth as the wayfarer and pilgrim would follow the directions placed for his guidance at the fork of the road. 

If acknowledgment of our sin is a necessary prelude to the “joy” and “experimental knowledge” of sins forgiven, acknowledgment of the Lord in all our ways is assuredly as necessary, if we would be “directed” in all our paths. 

In the New Testament epiginosko and epignosis are translated both by the words “knowledge” and “acknowledge”. In early days the distinction between them was not so sharply drawn as now. For example, the majestic words: 

“We knowledge Thee to be the Father of an infinite Majesty,”

was the recognized form in the year 1535A.D. To-day “knowledge” stands, in the first instance, for the “stuff” of knowledge, the information gathered, or the intelligence possessed. This however is the secondary meaning of the word, and even to-day a first-class dictionary places the primary meaning of “knowledge” as: “Acknowledgment, confession; recognition of the position of claims of any one” (Oxford English Dictionary). 

Epignosis is the combination of epi, “on”, and gnosis, “knowledge”, but it must not be assumed that the addition of epi indicates merely the piling up of knowledge upon knowledge: few, if any, occurrences of the word would justify this usage. 

When Hosea says: 

“The Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land” (Hosea iv. 1),

mere formal knowledge, historical knowledge, grammatical knowledge, is not intended. There is implicit in the word the idea of acknowledgment or recognition. If we could divest the word “recognition” of its secondary meaning (that of “recognizing” a person by feature or manner), and retain only the primary meaning, that of recognizing or acknowledging a liability or an obligation, the word would suit admirably. 

This matter is something more than a mere technicality; it lies near the very heart of all true teaching, and we therefore “recognize” the claims which the word has upon us to make its meaning clearly understood. Epiginosko occurs forty-two times in the New Testament and epignosis occurs twenty times. While space will permit of the setting out of only a selection from all these references, we trust that all who teach others, and those who desire the fullest proof of all that is here set forth as truth, will personally acquaint themselves with the usage of these words in the whole of the sixty-two occurrences: 

“Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. vii. 16). 

 “Elias is come already, and they knew him not” (Matt. xvii. 12). 

 “When Jesus perceived in His spirit” (Mark ii. 8). 

 “The people saw them . . . . . and many knew Him” (Mark vi. 33). 

 “Their eyes were holden that they should not know Him” (Luke xxiv. 16). 

In these few references taken from the Gospels, “recognize” could, with advantage, be substituted for “know”. We do not “know” a fig-tree by the mere fact of looking at its fruit, for a “knowledge” of the fig-tree involves acquaintance with several sciences, and then is but partial. Yet the most untutored and illiterate observer would “recognize” a fig-tree by its fruit.

It is a most natural transition for the word “recognize” to take on a moral colouring, so that while the recognition of a fig-tree by its fruit may not involve self-denial or expose to persecution, it becomes another matter to “recognize” the rejected Christ or the doctrine which is after godliness. 

In the passage we are about to consider let us therefore, with this explanation in mind, consistently use the word “recognize” or “acknowledge” in place of “knowledge”. Limitations of space compel us to confine ourselves to one passage only, but that a representative one.

“Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness” (Titus i. 1). 

Here the Apostle associates his ministry with two phases of Christian experience (1) According to the faith of God’s elect, this is basic; (2) According to a recognition of the Truth, this is experimental. This second phase is expanded thus: “According to a recognition of the truth, which (in its turn) is according to godliness.”

The Apostle is inspired to hold an even balance. He stresses neither the sovereignty of God nor the responsibility of man, but gives each its place. The faith of God’s elect comes first, and this is according to truth. We love Him because He first loved us. There could be no recognition of truth on our part, had it not been preceded by grace. It is however entirely untrue to represent the Apostle’s doctrine as the faith of God’s elect, and that only. That is but one side of it. It has another: 

“The Lord knoweth them that are His.” 

That is the elective side, the side that lies beyond our control, responsibility or power. The other is: 

“Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (II Tim. ii. 19). 

This is the experimental side, the side that lies within the ambit of our control, responsibility and power, as those who have received mercy to be faithful. 

The possession of the “knowledge” of the truth which is according to godliness is no guarantee that a “life” of godliness will ensue. But the “acknowledgment” or “recognition” of such truth does carry with it the idea of taking one’s stand, and abiding by any consequences that may follow. 

“Be not . . . . . ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner” 

(II Tim. i. 8). 

was a call to Timothy, who “knew” the truth, to “acknowledge” it, or, in the sense adopted in this series, to “recognize” its claims. The call comes with equal force to us to-day, when “knowledge” has increased, but when “the godly man ceaseth”, and acknowledgment of the truth, at times, costs dear. 

---------------

(From The Berean Exxpositor, vol. 36, page 9).

---------------