The question was asked: "What is the difference between knowing God and loving God?" As some have said, it would be difficult to differentiate because of the nature of God, and the nature of humankind and therefore- if a difference at all- it is a very fine line. Why is that? According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Shorter Catechism:
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, [1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]
God by his very nature is so worthy of adoration and worship- being perfect in every possible sense, he is therefore due this from all his creatures. Humankind is constituted in such a way, that, when the blindness of sin is taken away, so that we may know Him, then in as much as we truly know him, spontaneous worship necessarily follows, as the day follows from the rising of the sun. Because the original and fitted purpose of humanity is restored to its proper relation to God through the only mediator, Christ. But this fitness of worship is true not only of the special creation exemplified in humanity alone, but the whole of creation is engendered with this “rightness” of worship. In his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the people, in common adoration of their Lord, reached such a pitch, that “the whole multitude of disciples began to praise God joyfully in a loud voice for all the miracles they had seen”. Seeing, what must have appeared to them as inordinate worship, the religious leaders told Jesus to rebuke his disciples, to which Jesus responded: “if they remain silent, the very stones will cry out.”… [3]
Although the proper relation between God and humankind, on the part of man, is no doubt obligatory, yet it becomes not a duty, but a privilege, when- and to the extent- the veil is taken away. This privilege, or undeserved honour, by which grace has revealed the ultimate purpose for which we have come into existence, then elicits its proper response, just as surely as the proper response of frost is to give way, when the sun begins to light the shadows in which it lays. It is then that we are fit for our original purpose as those that enjoy who God is, and adore Him for what God is.
So, to know Him is to love Him.
Seen in this light we begin to understand the depth of meaning in the word “to know” that is used in Scripture. It is used in the sense of being in an intimate, loving relationship. This makes it distinct from mere intellectual “knowledge” such as what one might mean when one says one “knows” about God. We therefore view “knowing” as it is often used in Scripture as being intimately in relation with the person in view. A striking example of where this is seen occurs in Luke chapter one in Mary’s dialogue with her heavenly visitor who proclaims that as one who had gained favour with God, that she would bear a child, and that the “ Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end!” To which upon hearing this Mary exclaimed: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” [4] Immediately we perceive that this Greek word “ginosko” that is translated as “know” may be, and often is, used in a very intimate sense, connoting a deep relationship. The word, in this case must be understood on these grounds as it pertains to a personal relationship, even, as in this case, including an intimate physical relationship. It cannot mean that she didn’t know any man in the other sense, since she was already engaged to one. I know Barack Obama in the former sense, I don’t know him in the sense of having met him personally.
Having built then, a foundation for the word “ginosko” or “know” in the sense often intended, as an intimate, and personal way of relating it is not hard to see that it exists in close relation to the idea of love.
At this point I would remind the reader of God’s omniscience. God by nature is perfect, and one of those perfections involves the extent to which God knows his creation. To be omniscient is having complete, unlimited knowledge. “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” . [5] “Can anyone teach God knowledge, since He judges those on high?” [6] When King David drew Solomon close for instruction he said: “As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a loyal heart and with a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever” [7]
And so for instance, in the early chapters of Genesis, “when the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden” [8] do we suppose that God didn’t know where they were or why they hid? When “the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?” . [9] Was this for His own benefit, or was He in fact suggesting: Adam, I know where you are and what you are thinking, and why you have attempted to hide, but do you yourself really know what this means? Are you aware of just what you have got yourself into? Do you know where you are, in relation to me now? Do you know what must now inevitably follow? The day they ate, the prophecy came about, and their natural, and proper relationship with God ended, and estrangement began. And then God pronounced the curses upon them and their posterity and banished them from the garden.
The importance of knowing this distinction between mere mental agreement, (“knowing” as it is commonly understood), and knowing by intimate relation, as it is intended in scripture- is laid bare when we consider a passage that strikes a deadly chord, once we come to appreciate the subtlety.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' “ [10]
Clearly it cannot be intended from this verse- that God in Christ, the one who said “before Abraham was- I am” [11]- never knew these self appointed prophets, miracle workers and exorcists? To understand it in the sense that- he didn’t know of their existence, or what spirit they were of- is to deny a fundamental attribute of the Godhead- His omniscience. Therefore it must be seen in the light that we are now considering. He must mean, therefore that he has no relationship with these people, they laid claim to knowing him, but he, disowned them in terms of a relationship, “I never knew you” he said with emphasis. He of course, knew of them, but he bore no relationship to them. They were not his people.
Now we turn to a derivation of this word “ginosko”- “to know”. The Greek word is “proginosko” and means “to know beforehand”. We can appreciate the prefix when we consider the commonly used medical term “prognosis” which a doctor will use when she predicts the course of a disease and its outcome. It has the same origin as the word we are studying. So it has the future in mind. It is predictive knowledge.
Turning again to the scriptures- we learn from the context what intent the author had in mind when using this word. With this in mind then, it requires no stretch of the imagination to understand that the word “proginosko” or foreknowledge speaks of God’s omniscience in relation to the future. Indeed the scriptures leave nothing to the imagination where it says in Isaiah 46:10,11
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:...yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.:”
In the book of Romans chapter 10, Paul speaks of his love for his own kind, and prays that Israel is saved, and lays out how it is that they have gone astray by trusting in a righteousness that isn’t according to faith, but according to the law. In the spirit of reconciliation He explains:
“...there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek:for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” [12]
Drawing from various sources out of the Old Testament Paul explores the various advantages that Israel enjoyed by having the oracles of God, and by which they were made more guilty, because of their subsequent disobedience. “To whom much is given, much is required.”
He is careful to raise the question: If Israel is God’s chosen people, then why don’t they (by and large) accept the Gospel? Is it because they haven’t heard? Is it because they weren’t sent a preacher? Why is it they don’t believe? It is important to realize that Paul is declaring their guilt in not believing the Gospel from the Old Testament. He even shows that the Old Testament prophets Moses and Isaiah foretold of a coming day when that which they hoped for, the God, whom they sought, was hidden from them, but revealed to those that were not looking. That revelation, was given to another, the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy.
Having built his case demonstrating their estrangement, he then asks:
I say then, Hath God cast away his people?
Which he immediately answers:
God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
As if to say, “Of course not, see- am I not an Israelite? Have I not believed? Have I not been saved?” But then he qualifies this affirmation of saving Israel, with the statement:
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. [14]
And so we come crashing back to the relevance of this word proginosko or “foreknew”. To recap:
We saw that the word “know” can be used in a strictly formal sense. That is- that God “knows” everything as a simple mental assent to his omniscience.
But we have also seen that a legitimate use of the word “know” is that of knowing in the sense of being in intimate relationship with. Or as in the case of those that Christ told to depart from him, he was declaring the lack of this intimate relationship. “I never knew you” he declared, though it is equally obvious that he would indeed know them in the other sense.
From the context, and our understanding of this infinite capacity to know all that is knowable, that we rightly attribute to God, it must follow that the word in that context must mean that Jesus was never in relationship with these self appointed people claiming to be his.
We must now ask:
May the word proginosko or “foreknew” be used in precisely both the same ways as the word ginosko is used in sense 1. and 2.?
May it be used- not only in the way God understands the future, but also in the way that he is speaking of a love relationship that preexisted, with those that were yet to come into existence? Was it indeed speaking of the love that God had set upon a distinct people, that would be distinguished from all humanity by faith, that were preplanned to come into existence in the passage of time?
This may be answered first, by assuming that the verse in question only refers to the sort of “knowing” exemplified in sense number 1.
Doesn’t God foreknow every human being that came into existence?
In fact that would render the statement senseless. If God hasn’t cast off any that he foreknew then that would entail Universalism. God has not cast off any he foreknew, and he foreknows everyone, therefore everyone is saved. But this wouldn’t make sense, because Paul does speak of those being cast off, later on in this same chapter, and referring to the same people:
“For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” [15]
Therefore, if it is not coherent, when using the word “foreknew” in sense number 1. It therefore follows, that the sense we ought to understand it is sense number 2.
God hath not cast away his people- those with which he was in intimate relation to before they were even born. These were predestined to be loved by Him in existence even as He loved them before they arrived in due time.
If Christ was:
“... the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world...” [16] meaning for all intents and purposes, in the heart of God from the creation, was the intention that "God will provide for Himself the lamb…” [17] then the lamb was also slain with those in view for whom the sacrifice was already intended- from the beginning of creation.
We must assure ourselves that we are not reading into the text that which we wish to affirm, but that we allow the text to speak for itself, and allow scripture to interpret scripture.
How then does this sense concur with other passages?
We don’t have far to look. After making the point that God had not rejected Israel completely, qualifying this idea of rejection with the exception of those “whom he foreknew”, Paul immediately quotes scripture by which he builds a case, with the intention of persuading his hearers of this distinct division within Israel. He quotes Elijah appealing to God against Israel who “killed the prophets, and tore down the altars”. Paul then draws attention to Elijah’s plea to God- “I am the only one left, and they are seeking my life as well”. But what did Elijah mean where he said “I am the only one left”? The only one of whom?
Paul is introducing the idea of the true remnant of Israel that Elijah referred to. Paul reiterates God’s comforting answer to Elijah which follows: “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” [18] Paul then follows this up with his explanation for how things are still working according to this plan. He sees his own experience, in a similar light to Elijah’s. He himself, an Israelite, is also one of the “remnant chosen by grace.” In Paul’s understanding, his experience of the call of God in the Damascus road experience, was no less than the experience of Elijah, as examples of a calling out of the chosen people. It was not seen by him as a novelty, but as part of the continuing experience of that which was from the beginning. He sees himself therefore, along with all others that embraced Christ, as the true remnant of Israel. Whereas the rest of Israel “failed to obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened...” It is important to notice that the word “chosen” verse 5, is identical in the Greek language as the word “elect” verse 7.
This must call into question then, the almost universal acceptance of Evangelical Christianity of Christian Zionism. In effect Christian Zionism alludes to all Jewish people (irrespective of their view of Christ) as God’s “chosen people” or God’s elected people, as indeed Jewish people see themselves to this day. But then one must ask:
Are there two chosen peoples? Are there the chosen ones who are those who are Jews by blood relation to Abraham, and are there those chosen by the election of grace?
[1] Psalm 86, [2] Psalm 16:5-11, [3] Luke 19:37 fwd. [4] Luke 1:21 fwd. [5] Proverbs 15:3, [6] Job 21:22'
[7] 1 Chronicles 28:9, [8] Genesis 3:8, [9] Genesis 3:9, [10] Matthew 7:23, [11] John 8:58, [12] Romans 10:12,13, [13] Romans 10:14-21, [14] Romans 11:2, [15] Romans 11:15, [16] Revelation 13:8, [17] Genesis 22:8, [18] Romans11:4, 1 Kings 19:18
