The result of a little reflection spree the other day.
By Yours Truly
Sometimes when speaking in English about Jesus with a new acquaintance, I come upon a problem. If I ask, “Do you know Jesus?” usually the person will immediately reply, “Of course I do,” with a furrow on their brow, as if to say, “Who doesn’t?”
Not good enough. I shake my head and try another tack. Because they obviously don’t know Him—not the way I mean. They’re thinking something to this effect, Of course I know of Jesus. I hear about Him all the time. Who hasn’t? Oh dear, I hope this isn’t another religious fanatic...
This problem stems from the fact that our little English word “know” has a strangely wideh variety of meanings. I had never really noticed that fact, until I took up the study of Latin-based languages in earnest. It hit me, one day, as I was reflecting upon certain Spanish words and their meanings, that there are at least two distinct fields of thought condensed into our little English word “know”. And when a single word is the only vent for several different refrains of thoughts, misunderstandings are bound to arise.
Latin-based languages do not have this particular problem. Neither did our Old-English speaking ancestors; in fact, as far as I've been able to ascertain, most languages have enough verbs to cover the different domains which are governed solely by our “know”.
For reasons of time and convenience, I confined my research to Latin and its derivative languages, and came in the end to two root-words, upon which I've based this essay.
The first is the Latin word ‘sapere.’ Sapere has to do with information—that is, the educational, facts-and-figures type of knowledge. It's original meaning being 'to taste, or smell, to be informed of, to have heard of, or read about, or deduced, or learned.' To know of something. This word, and its intimated meaning, seems to denote a rather more superficial sort of knowledge.
“I know the sum of 2 + 2.”
“He knows that elephants are big.”
The other refrain of thought, for which we also use the word “know”, is derived from “cognocere,” or “gnoscere,” which denotes a more intimate feeling. It means to be acquainted with, to have met someone or something, and known them personally or figuratively. To have experienced something.
The connotation attached to this version of “know” is an intimate connection with the subject in question. We are not only aware of its existence; we have been touched in some way by its existence. This kind of knowledge is not always quantifiable, nor verifiable; it cannot always be measured via the facts-and-figures approach to knowledge. It goes beyond head-knowledge.
Therefore, when I’m speaking in, say, Spanish with someone and I venture to introduce my best Friend to them in the course of our conversation, I will naturally use the word for “know” derived from “cognocere,” and it produces an entirely different effect. More often than not, the person I’m speaking with will screw up their face and say, “What do you mean?” And they’re thinking, Of course I’ve never met Jesus; how could I have? I’ve heard of Him, sure, but I don’t know him... oh dear, not another religious fanatic.
Therein lies my point. It's the battle of 'knowledge of ' versus 'to know'.
Once that point is clear between myself and whoever it is I'm speaking with, I can then go on and introduce Jesus personally, because He really is a friend of mine, and I have met Him personally—it’s a heart thing, not an explainable derivative of sapere.
A short example will perhaps explain my point better and in fewer words.
Take an electrician, who knows everything he needs to know about electricity. He has a profound and all-encompassing knowledge of electricity; he knows how it works, why it works, what it does, and how to best use it. You could factually say he knows electricity, and you would be borrowing the term derived from 'sapere.'
Now, on the other hand, take a hill-billy country bumpkin who can't hardly spell his own name, has never seen an electrical appliance, and who has none of the technical information or knowledge about electricity. However, he was once struck by a lightning. His own acquaintanceship with electricity is vitally deeper than that of the electrician's, even though he never took a course on the subject, because he has actually experienced the power of the current in his own body. Thus, when he says, “Trust me, I KNOW electricity,” he's speaking the truth, cognoscere-wise.
I kind of feel the same way about Jesus. I don't have much technical knowledge of him, and apart from the very brief thumbnail sketch we are given of Him in the Bible, there isn't much anyone alive today can know of his physical persona.
However, I KNOW Him, I've experienced him, and so I’m eager that everyone I meet should meet Jesus, too, because, well, He is the center feature of my entire life, the reason for my existence. Without Him, I would have given up a long time ago. I still don't know what he looks like, but I know the touch of his spirit. It's not something I can describe; each person's got to experience it for themselves.
So what does it mean to know Jesus? Most people know of Him, but how many actually know him in the cognoscere sense of the word? How many have met Him, touched His presence in their heart? Head-knowledge of Him won’t warm your soul when you’re lonely, won’t protect you when you’re in trouble, won’t feed and strengthen your spirit. People who lump Jesus into the pot with all the other great men of history simply don’t know Him, period.
Jesus was not, and is not, a religious tidbit—he was a person. God wanted to show us an understandable illustration of Himself—He knew we as humans simply cannot grasp the concept of “God”; we’ve only the vaguest of ideas of the principles that govern the God factor of the universe. And so He dressed Jesus up in human flesh and said, “Here, this is Me.” Jesus was a human God; the Bible said He became flesh and dwelt among us, so we could behold the glory of the Father. (Another radical concept: God’s love for us is akin to the love a parent feels for his darling child. Earth-shaking concept at the time, when God was essentially a Law-Maker.)
Jesus broke absolutely every precedent in His interactions with humanity, and in the truths He taught. He was the first person to go around advocating unconditional forgiveness of enemies; He taught principles of life based on pure love, which was unheard of. Life’s principles were generally based on justice (well, sort of...), certainly not love. Jesus implied that sin not only meant breaking the rules; it also meant keeping the rules for unloving purposes. The only ones who could hope to attain to God’s mercy were those who accepted His love—and that God’s reward system is based on how faithful we are to His loving principles, rather than on how strictly we keep all the rules.
Those who actually met Jesus face to face while He was alive were deeply influenced and changed by His presence. Then Jesus was killed. He came back to life, hung around for forty days, and then His physical body took the elevator through the clouds. Since then, relatively few people have had the opportunity to meet Jesus face to face while still living on this planet.
But there’s still a very real Jesus, who, though no longer on our physical plane as a fellow human endowed with flesh and blood, nevertheless longs to meet each individual alive, and thrill each heart with His personal acquaintanceship, and His amazing and exclusive love.
Luckily, He’s got agents who make it their personal business to introduce Him to others.
Whether you “know” Jesus the way you know facts or figures, or whether you have met Him personally and know Him as He is meant to be known, in that deep, intimate way, makes all the difference in the world.
And it’s really too bad that we English speakers have to use the same word for both occasions.
“And you shall KNOW the truth, and the truth will make you free!!!”
No comments:
Post a Comment