The Meaning of 'foreknew' in Romans 8:29

The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented | 1963 | David N. Steele/Curtis C. Thomas

[Frumanchu]

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?

 

A. The meaning of “foreknew” in Romans 8:29

            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!

 

B. Romans 8:29 does not refer to the foresight of faith, good works, etc.

            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.

⁴ Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, p. 397.

⁵ Murray, Romans, Vol. I, p. 316.

[xzins]

God, whether He inhabits past, present, future or a bunny suit

The point is that the Bible Says that God inhabits eternity.

It doesn't say He inhabits a bunny suit.

(except at easter, of course.) :>)

[Jean Chauvin]

""Before Abraham was, I AM." What does that mean to you? He didn’t say, before Abraham was, I was, too. He used the present tense, signifying that not only was he there, but that he is there."

But this passage does not say, "Before Abraham was I am now".

This passage is not attempting to give us understanding of just how God relates to our experience of Time. It is communicating God's Sovereignty.

You are attempting to utilize a passage in a way that it was never intended to be used. That is not crying "Witch Witch, burn her."

Now, I have a question for you.

Can that which is created (everything except God) exist without the continual proactive sustaining power of the Will of God?

Jean

[xzins]

And so you want the concept of time to bend to your will; to make time mallable in your hands so that God can actually change time and events according to your actions.

Not true.

I'd say for myself that I'm looking for a better explanation of whether prayer changes things or not.

I'm not satisfied with the Calvinist or classical Arminian responses on that. They seem weak to me in that they're static.

The passages on answered prayer seem to be more active. My humble opinion, of course.

[xzins]

The sign-act of Abraham sacricing Isaac on Moriah (Golgotha?) also says that God inhabits eternity.

[xzins]

Again, the classical view is that Jesus gave up independent use of his powers and attributes.

[xzins]

Good.

We agree on all three points.

When do you think God's omniscience began? Was it before or after his omnipotence?

[Jean Chauvin]

Neither does the Bible tell us how God relates to our experience in time -i.e.: that God exists in the past present and future concurrently.

The word "concurrently" inherently is a "time" concept. One can not use time concepts to explain timelessness.

Likewise, "before" is also a "time" concept. The use of this word by definition cannot even begin to communicate God's timelessness because the word itself involves "time".

In reality, we cannot help but utilize "time" concepts when describing God.

If someone can say, "God exists before Abraham now", I can respond by saying "God will exist before Abraham now". Do you see what I mean? That is simply a nonsensical statement if used in an attempt to understand how God relates to time.

Jean

[William Terrell]

Consider, the skein of time and space upon which all human events play out from the beginning to the end, if there is an end, must be seen by God. The omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient Being of God created the material universe, and is "outside" of it with an overall view of it.

This means that even though God sees the entire string already played out by individual choice within the string, which individuals could not see the entirety and thus made choices as in freewill. The choices within the string of events foredestined their salvation. But God sees the end result, so knows how it would play out and thus says "I foreknew".

But, then, who here has discussed this over a beer with the Lord of Hosts?

[xzins]

I understand exactly what you mean.

Some say that God won't put anything in the bible that's difficult to understand.

I disagree.

He wouldn't tell us to study if it didn't require study.

So, the jury's out on any subject until one has done a fair study of it.

The subject now is time. We've done a zillion other subjects. We might as well do time, too.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Consider, the skein of time and space upon which all human events play out from the beginning to the end, if there is an end, must be seen by God.

The All-Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer. Your fate is fixed; Fear profits a man nothing.

[Jean Chauvin]

I think the real issue here is the comfort the Arminian has with utilizing naturalistic philosophy as a hermeneutical tool.

I've long notice in the absence of any Biblical teaching on "Free-Will" that Arminians simply appeal to a philosophical heremeutic that re-interprets Biblical teachings such that they agree with their philosphical concept of "Free-Will".

We see this with Romans 8:29 where the object of God's foreknowledge is not "people" like the text claims but the "actions" of people -or to interpret "predestination" as simply God's "pre-determination" as to a means of salvation as Gramm's commentary shows. i.e. -if it doesn't fit the "holy grail" of "Free-Will" it must need to be re-interpreted such that it does.

The height of this is found in the desire to be consistent in Arminianism as we see with the "Opennes" theology.

This, I think, explains the comfort and openness of the Arminians here on FR to play around with these philosophical speculations.

xzins did it a while ago with the "openness" issue -something the Calvinists immediately knew stunk to high heaven.

Marlowe tried it with his postulations that since God "forgets" our sins that they never really happened as well as his current speculation on how God's eternal nature works in time.

Calvinists, on the other hand, have never utlized naturalistic philosophy as a hermeneutical tool to interperet the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura!

Jean

[William Terrell]

What in the world are you talking about? Hide? Fear?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

What in the world are you talking about? Hide? Fear?

Shucks, you missed the reference.

Your post reminded me of one of my all-time favorite movie lines, from The 13th Warrior (an adaptation of Michael Crichton's re-telling of the Beowulf myth in his book Eaters of the Dead).

(Just before the first battle against the cannibalistic Wendol.
Herger the Joyous lays down to catch a few winks.)

Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: How can you sleep at a time like this?
Herger the Joyous: The All-Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer. Your fate is fixed; Fear profits a man nothing.

But, then, who here has discussed this over a beer with the Lord of Hosts?

Reminds me of another great line...

(Just before the final climactic war against the Wendol.
Herger offers Ahmed a drink of mead.)

Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: [ruefully] I cannot... "Taste neither the fermentation of grape, nor of wheat".
(Herger smiles, then chuckles, then starts to outright laugh)
Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: What? Why do you laugh?
Herger the Joyous: [laughing, and handing over the bottle] HONEY! It's made from honey!!
(Ahmed hesitates, then drinks deeply till it runs down his chin)

Awful reviews from the critics.
OP says go check it out.

[William Terrell]

I've seen it twice. Didn't remember the dialogue, though.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I've seen it twice. Didn't remember the dialogue, though.

Blame it on the honey.

;-) best, OP

[Frumanchu]

Awful reviews from the critics. OP says go check it out.

Passed that one up several times. Will have to see it now:)

[P-Marlowe]

In the realm of God, NOW encompasses all of eternity. Therefore NOW to God would be from before the creation through all of eternity. From our perspective the statement "Before Abraham was I AM" makes no sense, so we must rationalize it. But what exactly was Jesus saying. He was stating that he existed before Abraham, but like most scriptures, there are deeper meanings behind every syllable and every jot and every tittle. God's title of "I AM" speaks of his eternal existence without limitation. You yourself have indicated that God is not bound by time. Quantum physics postulates that an object traveling faster than the speed of light would travel backwards through time relative to the rest of the universe. So we are not speaking of nonsense here. We are speaking of the attributes of God and what it means to say he is the I AM.

While it is clearly possible that God knows everything that happens in the future because he has ordered everything to happen exactly as he wants it to and in essence he is the direct cause of all actions including all sins, but that goes against the statements of God that it is not his will that people sin and that people act in rebellion to his will.

God foreknows and thus everything is predestined according to his foreknowledge. I see Calvinists insisting that everything is predestined because God makes everything to happen as it does, including the very sins that God condemns. That is eternally and internally inconsistent. If God says on the one hand that he hates a behaviour, then it cannot be said on the other hand that he has commanded that behaviour to take place. Adam was commanded to NOT eat the fruit. God did not cause him to eat the fruit. If God were being consistent, he did not want Adam to eat the fruit. But he did. God knew he would and both God and Man have dealt with the consequences.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Quantum physics postulates that an object traveling faster than the speed of light would travel backwards through time relative to the rest of the universe. So we are not speaking of nonsense here. We are speaking of the attributes of God and what it means to say he is the I AM."

xcept God is not a particle. The "object" which is traveling faster than a speed of light is part of God's creation -it does not have anything to do with the Creator. God is not subject to "quantum physics".

Marlowe, with all due respect, you are pulling this all out of your butt. You are making it up as you go.

It is pure speculation and you are subjecting Biblical interpretation to your speculative thinking.

"While it is clearly possible that God knows everything that happens in the future because he has ordered everything to happen exactly as he wants it to and in essence he is the direct cause of all actions including all sins, but that goes against the statements of God that it is not his will that people sin and that people act in rebellion to his will"

No, that does not go against his statements. It fits perfectly with Genesis 50:20 and Acts 2:23. On the other hand, it seems that this reality only contradicts your "Free-Will" Philosophical paradigm. I'm not concerned with your naturalistic philosophical speculations which you have yet to support with the Scriptures.

You must think of "both/and" rather than "either/or".

Let the Scriptures speak for themselves. One does not need quantum physics (which obviously do not apply to the creator of quantum physics) in order to understand Scripture -at last that seemed to be the case for 1900 some years.

"I see Calvinists insisting that everything is predestined because God makes everything to happen as it does, including the very sins that God condemns"

Only because that is what the Scriptures seem to be telling us. We need not rely on quantum physics which obviously don't apply to the creator of quantum physics or on philosophical speculation. We need only rest on Scripture.

The prophet Moses has told us with words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit that God proactively decreed/determined/foreordained (and not according to ~your~ re-definitions of those words) and brought to be all the events that brought Joseph into Egypt. And it was for good. AT THE SAME TIME (both/and) Joseph's brothers did evil by selling Joseph into Slavery. Both/And, Marlowe, not either/or.

Also, the apostle Luke has told us with words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit that all the events of Christ's Crucifixion were predetermined/foreordained/ordered/decreed (and not according to ~your~ re-definitions of those words) by God himself. And it was for good. AT THE SAME TIME (both/and) the Jewish leaders did evil by crucifying the Lord Jesus. They murdered him and it was sin which needed forgiveness. Both/And, Marlowe, not either/or.

"That is eternally and internally inconsistent."

It is inconsistent only with our limited naturalistic philosophical understanding. It is entirely consistent with what the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures have declared.

How come you keep wanting to point me in the direction of reason and philosophy and I keep pointing you to Scripture?

You are doing precisely what I have said -utilizing naturalistic philosophical reasoning as a hermeneutical tool.

Futhermore, you cannot say that it is eternally inconsistent because that would be subjecting the Sovereign God to limited philosophical reasoning. (again, we see the need to limit God's sovereignty in order for your speculations to be true).

"If God says on the one hand that he hates a behaviour, then it cannot be said on the other hand that he has commanded that behaviour to take place. Adam was commanded to NOT eat the fruit. God did not cause him to eat the fruit. If God were being consistent, he did not want Adam to eat the fruit. But he did. God knew he would and both God and Man have dealt with the consequences"

Again, all philosophical objections. When we are dealing with a non-created, infinite God, we limit ourselves if we subject him to limited naturalistic philosophical reasoning.

Jean

[P-Marlowe]

The omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence of the eternal GOD all began simultaneously at the precise eternal instant when He began to be the eternal GOD.

Wrong answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There has never been any point in time or eternity when God began to be God. That may be impossible for any of us to comprehend, (just as his existence at all points in all eternity is impossible to comprehend), but to say that God's power began when he became God assumes a point when there was no God. That assumption is incorrect.

Try again.