The Meaning of 'foreknew' in Romans 8:29

“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.“ Romans 8:29,30

Broadly speaking there have been two general views as to the meaning and use of the word “foreknew” in Romans 8:29. One class of commentators (the Arminians) maintain that Paul is saying that God predestined to salvation those whom He foreknew would respond to His offer of grace (i.e., those whom He saw would of their own free will repent of their sins and believe the gospel). Godet, in commenting on Romans 8:29, asks the question: “In what respect did

God thus foreknow them?” and answers that they were “foreknown as sure to fulfill the conditions of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as His by faith.” ¹ The word “foreknew” is thus understood by Arminians to mean that God knew beforehand which sinners would believe, etc., and on the basis of this knowledge He predestined them unto salvation.

The other class of commentators (the Calvinists) reject the above view on two grounds. First, because the Arminians’ interpretation is not in keeping with the meaning of Paul’s language and second, because it is out of harmony with the system of doctrine taught in the rest of the Scriptures. Calvinists contend that the passage teaches that God set His heart upon (i.e., foreknew) certain individuals; these He predestined or marked out to be saved. Notice that the text does not say that God knew SOMETHING ABOUT particular individuals (that they would do this or that), but it states that God knew the individuals THEMSELVES – those whom He knew He predestined to be made like Christ. The word “foreknew” as used here is thus understood to be equivalent to “foreloved” – those who were the objects of God’s love, He marked out for salvation.

The questions raised by the two opposing interpretations are these: Did God look down through time and see that certain individuals would believe and thus predestine them unto salvation on the basis of this foreseen faith? Or did God set His heart on certain individuals and because of His love for them predestine that they should be called and given faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit and thus be saved? In other words, is the individual’s faith the cause or the result of God’s predestination?

God has always possessed perfect knowledge of all creatures and of all events. There has never been a time when anything pas, present, or future was not fully known to Him. But it is not His knowledge of future events (of what people would do, etc.) which is referred to in Romans 8:29,30, for Paul clearly states that those whom He foreknew He predestined, He called, He justified, etc. Since all men are not predestined, called, and justified, it follows that all men were not foreknown by God in the sense spoken of in verse 29.

It is for this reason that the Arminians are forced to add some qualifying notion. They read into the passage some idea not contained in the language itself such as those whom He foreknew would believe etc., He predestined, called and justified. But according to the Biblical usage of the words “know,” “knew,” and “foreknew” there is not the least need to make such an addition, and since it is unnecessary, it is improper. When the Bible speaks of God knowing particular individuals, it often means that He has special regard for them, that they are the objects of His affection and concern. For example in Amos 3:2, God, speaking to Israel says, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” The Lord know about all the families of the earth, but He knew Israel in a special way. They were His chosen people whom He had set His heart upon. See Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15. Because Israel was His

in a special sense He chastised them, cf. Hebrews 12:5,6. God, speaking to Jeremiah, said, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you,” (Jeremiah 1:5). The meaning here is not that God knew about Jeremiah but that He had a special regard for the prophet before He formed him in his mother’s womb. Jesus also used the word “knew” in the sense of personal, intimate awareness. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’ “ (Matt. 7:22,23). Our Lord cannot be understood here as saying, I knew nothing about you, for it is quite evident that He knew all too much about them – their evil character and evil works; hence, His meaning must be, I never knew you intimately nor personally, I never regarded you as the objects of my favor or love. Paul uses the word in the same way in I Corinthians 8:3, “But if one loves God, one is known by him,” and also II Timothy 2:19, “the Lord knows those who are His.” The Lord knows about all men but He only knows those “who love Him, who are called according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28) – those who are His!

Murray’s argument in favor of this meaning of “foreknew” is very good. “It should be observed that the text says ‘whom He foreknew’; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition. This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression ‘whom he foreknew’ contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed. If the apostle had in mind some ‘qualifying adjunct’ it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative answer. Although the term ‘foreknew’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know’. Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love’, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2;

Hosea 13:5; Matt 7:23; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19; I John 3:1). There is no reason why this import of the word ‘know’ should not be applied to ‘foreknow’ in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5,6). When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and ‘whom He foreknew’ is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain – it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is He who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it….It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.” ²

Hodge observes that “as to know is often to approve and love, it may express the idea of peculiar affection in this case; or it may mean to select or determine upon….The usage of the word is favourable to either modification of this general idea of preferring. ‘The people which he foreknew,’ i.e., loved or selected, Rom. 11:2; ‘Who verily was foreordained (Gr. foreknown), i.e., fixed upon, chosen before the foundation of the world.’ I Peter 1:20; II Tim. 2:19; John 10:14,15; see also Acts 2:23; I Peter

1:2. The idea, therefore, obviously is, that those whom God peculiarly loved, and by thus loving, distinguished or selected from the rest of mankind; or to express both ideas in one word, those whom he elected he predestined, etc.” ³

Although God knew about all men before the world began, He did not know all men in the sense that the Bible sometimes uses the word “know,” i.e., with intimate personal awareness and love. It is in this latter sense that God foreknew those whom He predestined, called, and justified, as outlinsed in Romans 8:29,30!

As was pointed out above, it is unnecessary and therefore indefensible to add any qualifying notion such as faith to the verb foreknew in Romans 8:29. The Arminians make this addition, not because the language requires it, but because their theological system requires it – they do it to escape the doctrines of unconditional predestination and election. They read the notion of foreseen faith into the verse and then appeal to it in an effort to prove that predestination was based on foreseen events. Thus particular individuals are said to be saved, not because God willed that they should be saved (for He willed the salvation of everyone) but because they themselves willed to be saved. Hence salvation is make to depend ultimately on the individual’s will, not on the sovereign will of Almighty God – faith is understood to be man’s gift to God, not God’s gift to man.

Haldane, comparing Scripture with Scripture, clearly shows that the foreknowledge mentioned in Romans 8:29 cannot have reference to the foreseen faith, good works, or the sinner’s response to God’s call. “Faith cannot be the cause of foreknowledge, because foreknowledge is before predestination, and faith is the effect of predestination. ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,’ Acts 13:48. Neither can it be meant of the foreknowledge of good works, because these are the effects of predestination. ‘We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works; which God hath before ordained (or before prepared) that we should walk in them;’ Eph. 2:10. Neither can it be meant of foreknowledge of our concurrence with the external call, because our effectual calling depends not upon that concurrence, but upon God’s purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Tim. 1:9. By this foreknowledge, then, is meant, as has been observed, the love of God towards those whom he predestinates to be saved through Jesus Christ. All the called of God are foreknown by Him, - that is, they are the objects of His eternal love, and their calling comes from this free love. ‘I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn thee,’ Jer. 31:3.” ⁴

Murray, in rejecting the view that “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 refers to the foresight of faith, is certainly correct in stating that “It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that ‘foreknew’ means foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3-8; 6:44;45,65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Pet. 1:2). Hence his eternal foresight

of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing, and we are thrown back upon the differentiation which proceeds from God’s own eternal and sovereign election to faith and its consequents. The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage. On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that ‘foreknew’ refers to the foresight of faith.” ⁵

¹ Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p 325. Italics are his.

² John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I, pp. 316-318. Italics are his.

³ Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 283, 284. Italics are his.

You are talking nonsense here and then you equate Jesus' statement of FACT that IF they had seen the same miracles, THEN they would have repented with your nonsensical statement of natural impossibility. I think you are trivializing what Jesus was saying there.

No, I'm not talking nonsense. It is a true statement by virtue of the laws of physics. If gravity were to cease, you and I would go flying off into space. It is a conditional statement of fact and the fact that it is a "natural impossibility" does not negate its factuality. More on "natural impossibility" in a second...

According to you Calviniststs, the people that Jesus was speaking to had a negative attitude towards the miracles because it was Gods perfect will that they respond negatively to the miracles. According to you Calvinists, the People of Tyre and Sidon were judged because it was God perfect will that they not repent and that they be judged. It was nothing in them, but it was what was in God. Therefore there was no "if" because the "if" that Jesus spoke of was a factual impossibility. That is dishonest. It could not be a true statement under any circumstances.

False, Marlowe. It could be a true statement if God had performed the miracles. Or is Jesus a liar?:)

There is a difference here to be noted. The situation is not one where the miracles were performed in Tyre and Sidon and they chose to ignore them, but rather that the miracles were never performed in the first place DESPITE the knowledge that performing them WOULD (not could) have brought about their repentance. The issue is not whether or not God was able to convince them with the miracles, but the fact that He knowingly withheld the means of salvation from those people.

Regardless, it comes back to the natural state of man. In his fallen state, he's going to choose against God. God doesn't have to put the suggestion in their heads...they sin all on their own. So, going back to your statement about "talking nonsense" regarding a "natural impossibility" the comparison is actually quite accurate.

In both examples (gravity and Tyre/Sidon), unless there is direct intervention on God's part (removal of gravity/performance of miracles) what is natural will occur (gravity will continue to hold us to the Earth/Tyre and Sidon will continue in their sinfulness and unrepentance). In neither case is the conditional statements proposed erroneous, invalid or dishonest. They are solidly grounded in fact.

What I can't get around is that, at a minimum, they HAD to be simultaneous, and if anything, God knew what He was going to decide BEFORE He did it. He absolutely had to know in concert with what He was deciding. I agree but I see that as a rather Calvinist position . The time of the election was before the man could have done anything good or evil. So God had to make the decision before or at the time of creation. That rules out an election based on mans choice of God.. God first had his plan and then He placed the elect and the non elect in position to bring that plan to pass. God does not respond to the acts of men , but rather the acts of men are ordained of God for His purposes. I think of this scripture Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have [sufficient] to finish [it]? What scripture does tell us is that God chose according to His own pleasure a remnant of men for His glory, not because the man made the correct choice..but rather that the man would be a tool in the hand of God

What good does hearing the Gospel do to the unregenerate? I makes the Gospel available to be understood by the unregenerate, setting up conditions for the call by the Father. If the unregenerate display faith in Him, then that faith is the beginning point for the unregenerate to return to God because the penalty of sin has already been paid, but out current state is still unregenerate.

The gospel is not heard or understood by the unregenerate. it is simply noise to them. They do not want to hear it , they refuse it,it offends them and their rejection of it condemns them to hell

Besides we still are to follow the Great Commission. What does the realization of one's sinful nature do for the unregenerate?

The unregenerate do not believe they are sinners . They do not "sin " they make "mistakes" and that does not matter because they are better than their neighbor , and they are just "good enough" to go to heaven ..or they laugh and say they want to be in hell with their friends ..laughing themselves to the flames by their disbelief of the power or-of God or His wrath at the sin of men

Why would an unregenerate person ask Jesus to come into his heart and make a new creature in him? Considering such a request is blasphemy, many might be tempted to ask that. Instead, they simply need to exercise faith for salvation provided by God.

Indeed faith to salvation is a gift of God..But it not "simply" because not all men have saving faith given to them by God. How do we know that ? Look around you. To exercise that faith the man would have to seek God and desire the gift..and as you see and the bible tells us that NONE seeketh after God

If God could have created the world differently (which He could have), then the world He did create is exactly as He wants it to be. Since this world is not through yet, then the eternal God could, because He is eternal/timeless, go back (our perspective) and make something be incorporated in the movie that hadn't yet been there.

This would violate His immutable nature.

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Fru, there are over 300 "If-Then" statements in the bible which clearly show that God responds to what men do or say or pray. If the people of Tyre and Sidon had prayed for those miracles that Jesus mentioned, then God very well may have provided the miracles that Jesus spoke of. We don't know why the "if" was not done, nor do we know why the "then" was not done. Neverthless it is clear that Jesus was speaking of the range of infinite possibilities and exhibiting his prior foreknowledge of the events surronding what and why the judgment came upon Tyre and Sidon and why God did not intervene with miracles at that time.

If my granddaughter is hungry I will feed her.

I know she will be hungry , that is no mystery.

If God has ALWAYS been timeless, and has ALWAYS performed outside of time and sometimes inside of time,,b. then it is no contradiction of His immutability for Him to act outside of time now. It would simply mean that one characteristic of God that has not changed (immutable) is His acting outside of time.

But that is not what you said xzins

Here are your words

If God could have created the world differently (which He could have), then the world He did create is exactly as He wants it to be. Since this world is not through yet, then the eternal God could, because He is eternal/timeless, go back (our perspective) and make something be incorporated in the movie that hadn't yet been there.

That is God changing His mind before the end of the book Steve. It requires God to go and change something that he has already ordained, and a violation of Scripture as well as the nature of God

Isa 46:10 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:

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Hbr 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed [it] by an oath:

It seems that some people are constrained to insist that God does not make any decisions NOW. That all decisions were made BACK THEN.

But what needs to be realized is that if God inhabits eternity, then any decision that God makes NOW, he literally and actually made even before the foundation of the earth, because he is there NOW.

Thefore God can interact with us in time (now), while at the same time maintaining his eternal immutability and behold he changes not. Nothing has changed, even from the foundation of the earth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

THE MEANING OF “FOREKNEW” IN ROMANS 8:29