kardiognōstēs (omniscience)

A. To fully know the hearts of all (kardiognōstēs) is the same thing as being omniscient (= God).
1. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): kardiognōstēs is unknown to secular Gk. and to the LXX, and occurs in the NT only in Acts 1:24 and 15:8 and later in patristic writings. It describes God as the knower of hearts. The fact that God sees, tests and searches the hidden depths of the human heart is commonly stated in both the OT and the NT (1 Sam. 16:7; Jer. 11:20; 17:9f.; Lk. 16:15; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 2:23). This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardiognōstēs (2:183, Heart, T. Sorg).
2. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): The designation of God as ho kardiognōstēs , "the One who knows the heart," expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both the NT and OT piety (Lk. 16:15; R. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:23 of Christ, cf. 1 Bas. 16:7; 3 Bas. 8:39; 1 Par. 28:9; Psalm 7:9; Ier. 11:20; 17:10; Sir. 42:18 ff.), namely that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognōstēs, Behm).
3. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT): On the one hand God is "in heaven" (Matt 6:9f. par.; 7:11; 11:25) and strictly distinguishable from everything that is of this world. On the other hand, however, he is present (Matt 6:1-18; Rev 1:8) and omniscient (Matt 6:8, 32; Acts 1:24; 15:8) (2:141, theos, G. Schneider).
4. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE): the psalmist acknowledged the omniscience of God who knows the secrets of the heart (44:21[22]) (3:426, ta`alummah - hidden, secret, Andrew Hill).

Fully knowing the hearts of all is linked with knowing the fullness of the underworld (Proverbs 15:11). God fully knows both because His eyes are in every place (Proverbs 15:3) – this is omniscience.

Omniscience belongs to God alone.
1 Kings 8:39
then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men.

B. The Lord Jesus fully knows the hearts of all (kardiognōstēs) which means He is omniscient (= God) because:
1. He is the "Lord" in Acts 1:24.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/our-god-yhwh-alone.9406/page-14#post-794200
2. He is the speaker in Revelation 2:23.
a. See the NIDNTT (#1) and TDNT (#2) above.
b. David Aune: This allusion has important christological significance, since the original speaker in Jer 17:10 was Yahweh, but now it is the exalted Christ who possesses the same omniscience (Word Biblical Commentary, 52A, Revelation 1-5, page 206).
c. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): we read of the knowledge of God Himself at Rev. 2:23 (1:705, ginōskō, Bultmann).
d. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT): In Rev 2:23, in a description of God, who examines (or tests) "kidneys and hearts," i.e., who knows the innermost parts of human beings (cf. LXX Ps 7:10; Jer 11:20; 17:10; 20:12) (2:464, nephros, S. Legasse).
e. George Milligan: (1 Thessalonians 2:4) καρδία, according to Bibl. usage, is the focus of the personal life, the centre of all, intellectual as well as emotional, that goes to make up the moral character, and is thus equivalent to the inner, hidden man known to God alone, cf. 1 Regn. 16:7, Acts 1:24, Romans 8:27, Revelation 2:23
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gmt/1-thessalonians-2.html

While Christ was living a 100% legitimate human life, I believe he relied on the Holy Spirit for all knowledge.

Dizerner said:

While Christ was living a 100% legitimate human life, I believe he relied on the Holy Spirit for all knowledge.

Click to expand...

Which infers that he wasn't "God" but a receiver of all that God had. cf. Matthew 11:27, John 17:5, John 16:15.

cjab said:

Which infers that he wasn't "God" but a receiver of all that God had. cf. Matthew 11:27, John 17:5, John 16:15.

Click to expand...

No, you are making up man-made rules.

God can be whatever he says he can be—he is not limited to what minds can conceive.

Dizerner said:

No, you are making up man-made rules.

Click to expand...

No, I'm quoting the bible. I didn't make up what the bible says, which you have failed to take into account.

Answer me this: how can "God" receive from "God" all that God has? Even to suggest it is religious buffoonery of a high order. Jesus fully explained how the word "God" could be made to apply to himself in John 10:34-36, and it didn't entail confounding himself with the Father, as the modern Sabellians always do.

cjab said:

No, I'm quoting the bible. I didn't make up what the bible says, which you have failed to take into account.

Answer me this: how can "God" receive from "God" all that God has? Even to suggest it is religious buffoonery of a high order. Jesus fully explained how the word "God" could be made to apply to himself in John 10:34-36, and it didn't entail confounding himself with the Father, as the modern Sabellians always do.

Click to expand...

Correct. To argue such an absurdity is to redefine simple language so that it stops making any sense.

Because at some point Christ gave it up.

That's the Kenosis.

Dizerner said:

Because at some point Christ gave it up.

That's the Kenosis.

Click to expand...

I agree with your recourse to "specific person" language. The thing is, if you talk like a Sabellian, you will unavoidably become one. Therefore it makes sense to refrain from any language that connotes Sabellianism. Abuse and miisuse of the term "God", who is a definite person in the bible, stems from the inroads into Christianity of Greek philosophy. The only time "God" is applied to a person other than the Father, is when it is applied in a strictly technical sense according to the rules of the Greek language, which avoids confounding persons. Thus Jn 1:1c isn't a licence for Sabellianism, because the denotation of the Word as God means the Word's possession and exercise of all the properties of God, i.e. "all that God has", where God still denotes the person of the Father, per Jn 1:1b.

Yeah, yeah, bunch of mumbo-jumbo and God doesn't mean God anymore.

Very convincing.

Dizerner said:

Yeah, yeah, bunch of mumbo-jumbo and God doesn't mean God anymore.

Very convincing.

Click to expand...

First, I made it quite clear that "God" always means "God."
Rather it is Sabellians or careless Trinitarians who make out that God no longer means God. The Sabellian God isn't found in scripture, and is a creation of men.

Second, Greek isn't English, and has different language rules, which have to be learned the hard way if you really want to grasp what the Greek texts are saying deeper than their English paraphrase.

12 reasons I believe Jesus is God:

1. A mere creation cannot have eternally co-existed with God.

2. A mere creation cannot have co-created the world.

3. A mere creation cannot be enough to atone for an infinite crime against holiness.

4. A mere creation cannot contain the principle of life itself inside it.

5. A mere creation cannot destroy the power of death in itself.

6. A mere creation cannot receive worship from every created thing.

7. A mere creation cannot hold all authority in heaven and earth.

8. A mere creation would have admonitions not to idolize or worship it.

9. A mere creation cannot potentially live inside of all human beings.

10. A mere creation would not even be directly associated with anything divine.

11. A mere creation cannot demand that nothing be loved more than it as it would be commanding idolatry.

12. A mere creation cannot call itself the only absolute way and truth.

At the point you are willing to accept all 12 things, it is virtually indistinguishable for me from God anyway, and Jesus is functioning as God whether you use the term "God" or not. The Father becomes just one order of rank above Jesus with the same attributes, and that in fact corresponds to Trinitarian theology—Father and Son have the same attributes, but the Son submits to the Father.

Dizerner said:

12 reasons I believe Jesus is God:

1. A mere creation cannot have eternally co-existed with God.

2. A mere creation cannot have co-created the world.

3. A mere creation cannot be enough to atone for an infinite crime against holiness.

4. A mere creation cannot contain the principle of life itself inside it.

5. A mere creation cannot destroy the power of death in itself.

6. A mere creation cannot receive worship from every created thing.

7. A mere creation cannot hold all authority in heaven and earth.

8. A mere creation would have admonitions not to idolize or worship it.

9. A mere creation cannot potentially live inside of all human beings.

10. A mere creation would not even be directly associated with anything divine.

11. A mere creation cannot demand that nothing be loved more than it as it would be commanding idolatry.

12. A mere creation cannot call itself the only absolute way and truth.

At the point you are willing to accept all 12 things, it is virtually indistinguishable for me from God anyway, and Jesus is functioning as God whether you use the term "God" or not. The Father becomes just one order of rank above Jesus with the same attributes, and that in fact corresponds to Trinitarian theology—Father and Son have the same attributes, but the Son submits to the Father.

Click to expand...

All you have done is to equate "God" with that which is uncreated (i.e. divine). So you are using "God" adjectivally, as if it entailed "divine."

However, God (theos) is not an adjective but a noun. Moreover there are other Greek words for divine.

So your argument doesn't achieve anything, except to argue that all that is uncreated is divine. I think that is pretty obvious. However a quite separate point is that "God" with the definite article is the title of the Father in the NT, and that Jesus came from God, by his own words. That means that to call even the risen Jesus "God" could in many circumstances be seen as wrong because it confounds the title of the Father with the person of Christ, leading to a Sabellian theology. Of course Christ sits on the throne of God, so in one sense, i.e. the Jn 1:1c sense, it is true, but you need to be acutely aware of the sense, when you are working out your own particular brand of trinitarianism. For if you're not, you end up in Sabellianism very quickly, as so many on this board, with zero ability to conceptually separate Christ from his Father except by a token differentiation in nomenclature.

Moreover we have the practice of the apostles who do not call Jesus "God," which I think that is to avoid the error of Sabellianism. To go against the practice of the apostles seems to me to be rank stupidity.