Even Jesus disciples did not know Him according to His true nature. Peter first saw it when Jesus asked him:
…15“ But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.…(
Matthew 16:15-18)
Peter knew Jesus personally. However, this level of knowledge about Jesus came by revelation from the Father
Epignosis does not mean personal knowledge of the man Jesus. It has to do with
revealed knowledge. What does an
elevated experiential exposure to the truth even mean? When you use the phrase TASTE ITS POWER are you not aware that TASTE is a Biblical word meaning to EXPERIENCE. In what way do non-regenerate taste the power of God? Do you mean they feel goose bumps?
The disciples had a human understanding of Jesus. However, Peter, James and John got much a clearer view of who He really was on the Mountain of Transfiguration.
A lot of people had known Jesus after the flesh but much fewer knew who He really was.
Therefore, from now, we
know no one according to the flesh. Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh,
yet now we know Him thus [in this way] no longer (2 Corinthians 5:16)
According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, EPIGNOSIS when referring to God means the knowledge of his holy will and of the blessings which he has bestowed and constantly bestows on men through Christ:
Ephesians 1:17;
Colossians 1:10;
2 Peter 1:2; of Christ, i. e. the true knowledge of Christ's nature, dignity, benefits:
Ephesians 4:13;
2 Peter 1:8;
2 Peter 2:20; of God and Christ:
2 Peter 1:2
The Topical Lexicon adds the following:
ἐπίγνωσις (epignōsis) denotes an experiential, relational, and transforming knowledge. It is
more than data acquisition; it embraces
recognition, acknowledgment, and personal appropriation of truth revealed by God. In the New Testament it is always anchored in divine initiative and always bears moral and spiritual consequences. Do you still think Judas had a full measure of this?
First it says that they had
ESCAPED the pollutions of the world through the
EPIGNOSIS of their Lord and Savior.
No one escapes the pollution of the world and the flesh through
intellectual knowledge ABOUT Jesus. This had to be speaking of the superior, revelatory saving
knowledge of Jesus Christ. The fact that they knew Him
as their Lord and Savior makes the point about the kind of knowledge they had with Jesus.
Peter did speak about a
reversal of their decision - how after having been cleansed they
returned to what their former lives and immersed themselves once again in sin. At this point, the metaphor fails so you try to import other metaphors - that of being sheep - and mix them together to present a picture Jesus never spoke about - where sheep metamorphose into pigs and back again. These are not the lessons Jesus taught,
The New Covenant was made
between God and believers. If it was not between them why did Jesus mislead us by having us drink the cup of covenant communion WITH Him
Here is a highly precise, contextually grounded response to JimiSurvivor that directly engages his lexical defenses and his misunderstanding of covenant communion.
My Response to JimiSurvivor
Jimi,
You have provided excellent lexical definitions for
epignōsis. But your argument falls into a classic theological trap: you are confusing
the objective definition of a word with its subjective application in a text.
Lexicons tell us what a word
can mean; the immediate context determines what a word
does mean in that specific passage. Let's look at the text to dismantle the idea that
epignōsis guarantees vital regeneration, and correct your understanding of the New Covenant architecture.
1. The Dynamic of Epignōsis Without Regeneration (2 Peter 2:20-22)
You cited Thayer’s and the Topical Lexicon to argue that
epignōsis must always be a transforming, saving knowledge. If that is true, then you have a massive textual problem with
2 Peter 2:20–22.
The text explicitly states that these false teachers had an
epignōsis of the Lord and Savior, and through it, they outward-escaped the pollutions of the world. Yet, Peter concludes by declaring their true, internal nature:
“The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”
You claim I am mixing metaphors, but
this is Peter’s metaphor, not mine. Notice the precise language:
- Peter does not say a sheep metamorphosed into a pig.
- He says a sow (a pig) was washed.
A washed pig looks clean on the outside, just as an unregenerate person with a high
epignōsis (intellectual illumination and reformation of manners) looks reformed on the outside. But a washed pig still possesses a pig’s nature. The moment it is left to itself, its immutable internal disposition drives it back to the mud.
They did not lose a sheep's nature; they simply manifested the pig's nature they had all along. This is the exact definition of an elevated, experiential exposure to truth that alters a person's outward behavior and theology without ever quickening their dead soul.
2. Did Judas Have Epignōsis?
You ask if Judas had a full measure of this knowledge. Look at
Matthew 10:1–4 and
Luke 10. Judas was officially commissioned by Christ. He was given supernatural power to heal sicknesses and cast out devils.
To cast out a devil in the name of Christ requires an objective recognition, acknowledgment, and personal operation of divine truth. Judas experienced the physical manifestation of God's power flowing directly through his own hands!
Yet, despite this supreme level of supernatural, experiential exposure, Jesus explicitly stated in
John 6:70:
“Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” Judas was never a transformed sheep who lost his salvation; he was a devil from the beginning who possessed an extraordinary external illumination.
3. The New Covenant: Inter-Trinitarian Compact vs. The Communion Cup
Finally, you ask:
“If the New Covenant was not between God and believers, why did Jesus mislead us by having us drink the cup of covenant communion WITH Him?”
Jesus did not mislead anyone. You are confusing the
legal execution of a covenant with its
practical administration.
A covenant requires a
Surety—a legal representative who guarantees the fulfillment of the terms.
Hebrews 7:22 explicitly states that Jesus is the
Surety of a better testament.
- In the Old Covenant, the people co-signed the contract at Mount Sinai, crying out, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exodus 19:8). They broke it immediately because its execution depended on volatile human performance.
- In the New Covenant, the elect did not co-sign the contract. The Father made the covenant with the Son on behalf of the elect before the foundation of the world (Titus 1:2, Ephesians 1:4). Jesus took full legal responsibility to fulfill the law, pay the penalty, and sovereignly send the Spirit to replace our stony hearts.
When we drink the communion cup, we are not "signing" a conditional contract based on our performance. We are
partaking in a memorial celebration of a covenant that was already legally sealed and finished by Christ's blood alone. We drink the cup
with Him as the beneficiaries of His estate, not as co-executors of the legal contract.
If the New Covenant depended on the believer's ability to maintain it, it would be just as volatile and breakable as the Old Covenant. But God says it cannot be broken precisely because He guarantees both sides of the ledger:
“I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me” (
Jeremiah 32:40).
