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.

now if that particle is in different times and locations in its travels...

God travels with each particle in existence as it moves through time and space.

God is "aware" of each particle at all times. He knows the past and future of each particle and does not leave the side of that particle as it expends its allotted time of existence.

The trajectory of each particle is known to God from before existence. He was and is and always will be the architect of every particle's trajectories for all time. And He's also the creator and controller of every force that works upon those trajectories, guiding all to His satisfaction.

What you seem to be postulating is that the past, present and future might be separate entities in the mind of God, and thus He can exist concurrently in three dimensions, stepping from one to another in order to effect a "change of course;" "answer" a prayer; make a "decision."

Take one step back to focus on a still-wider view. God knows all of that, and has factored it into his plan for history from before time.

Anything you offer, the response is the same. God already knows that; God already decreed that; God already willed that.

Nothing is unknown to God.

The very reason Roddenberry wrote "Star Trek" was because he despised the idea that God was in control of him.

It's satanic to believe otherwise, however.

What is your favorite verse about God & Time?

Though not Biblical, nor even Christian, this one's interesting:

"I believe time is a companion who goes with us on the journey that reminds us to cherish every moment because they'll never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we live it. After all, we're only mortal." Captain Jean-Luc Picard, "Star Trek, the Next Generation"

Everything I understand about time and God, however, is embodied in this:

Ephesians 2:8-10 -- For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

"You've set up a false premise. Indeed, you have set up the ultimate false premise. The answer is impossible because the premise is impossible."

Which is why I stated from the outset that it is a false premise and also why I first asked an entirely different question.

The purpose of the second question is to make sure you understand what I mean about "continual proactive sustaining power of the Will of God".

An even different question that communicates the same idea is:

Does the created "not God" have eternal existence or does the existence of the "not God" entirely and completely depend upon God's sustaining Will?

Even though it is a false premise, I hope you now can see what I am getting at when I ask what would happen to the created "not God" if God decided -by his own "Free-Will"- to cease to exist.

"If God chose at some point in time to not exist, then obviously that event would have occurred before the creation of the creation."

Since the word "before" indicates chronological progression, it is impossible to have a "time" that is "before" the creation of creation because "time" itself is part of the creation. This is not an answer. You are avoiding the obvious.

"Nothing exists without God and God exists. Period."

Now you are getting somewhere.

Since nothing exists without God, then if my premise were possible, what would happen to the created "not God" if God decided by his own Free-Will to cease to exist?

If you still convulse over that question, I'll ask a slightly different question:

Is "nothing exists without God" the same thing as saying "nothing exists without God's sustaining Will"?

And if you still are unclear with what I am after: "Is the Deistic belief that God can "forget" about his creation even possible?" What would happen if God did not "Will" any more effort into sustaining the created "not God"?

"BTW what does this have to do with anything?"

Humor me.

Jean

"1. A particle/object that can travel backward in time IS at that location and at that time."

Ah! But the particle/object still needs to travel into its own future to get there.

As the theory goes, the speed ("miles per HOUR" -not "miles per (-)hour") the particle/object travels affects the speed at which it travels through time. The faster it goes, the faster it reaches a specific point in the past. The slower it goes, the slower it reaches a specific point in the past.

Let's say this particle is named "xzins" and he is going to travel to "Point X" in the past. Let's also assume that the amount of time this particle travels to get to "Point X" is 24 hours ("xzins" happens to have the TM1000 which is last years model. The TM2000 which was released a month before would make the trip in only 19 hours.).

As "xzins" enters his time maching, "xzins" looks at his Timex and notes the date of Dec 6, 2001 and the time of 0100 hrs. He needs to get to Dec 7, 1941 at 0100 hrs to warn the U.S. Naval fleet in Hawaii about the impending attack from the Japanese. This "trip" through time will take him 24 hours.

It is true that "xzins" can say, "TOMORROW, I will be in Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941 at 0100 hrs. That is true according to his perspective.

"xzins" begins his journey. Now, while "xzins" is traveling in the time-maching, he is NOT progressing backwards through his life. He doesn't start at "0100 12/6/2003 and then next second he is at "0059 12/6/2003 of his life. Because "xzins" will look at his watch and see that his trusty ol' Timex is running forward at the same rate it always was.

After 1 hour of travel, "xzins" is getting a little anxious. He says to himself, "Boy, I wish I would get (future tense) there." What "xzins" does not say is, "ereht teg dluow I hsiw I ,yoB" "xzins" is not "talking backwards". For "xzins", time is progressing into the future just as it always will. It is still Dec 6 for "xzins", but he knows on the future date of Dec 7, 2003, he will be at his destination -after all, that is what his Timex will read.

When "xzins" finally arrives after 24 hours, he also can truly say, "I left the future YESTERDAY" It is also very true that "xzins" has AGED 1 Day since he began his trip.

So, to say that a particle/object travels into the past is really a misnomer. From that particle's perspective, that particle is traveling into the future. That particle is not "re-living" its life in reverse. It is simply transversing "time" to ultimately (a word denoting future eventualities) get to his destination.

So, you see, a particle will travel into its own future as it travels back through "time".

"Additionally, it is NOT an unfair application of the biblical truth that "God inhabits eternity.""

Except the word "inhabits" inherently involves a progression of time. One doesn't inhabit anything if he didn't spend some "time" there.

Do you know see why it is simply useless to attempt to explain how a "time-less" God relates to "time"?

Jean

it is a problem for a finite, time-bound creature to even begin to attempt to describe how a time-less God relates to "time" and then to base one's understanding of Scripture on such speculation.

Jean, you keep missing the point that this is to be a biblical discussion. I will hazard a guess that as much is written about God & Time as is written about God's pre-creation decrees.

Therefore, human wisdom on either of those subjects would be speculation.

But that's why we have the bible....it is GOD's revelation of what he wants us to know.

Acts 17:26 He made also of one blood every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth -- having ordained times before appointed, and the bounds of their dwellings --

Ephesians 1 9And he[1] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. 11In him we were also chosen,[2] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

"Jean, you keep missing the point that this is to be a biblical discussion. I will hazard a guess that as much is written about God & Time as is written about God's pre-creation decrees. "

Yeah? Then why the am I reading the following B.S. from you:

"1. A particle/object that can travel backward in time IS at that location and at that time."

Apparently it's OK for you to wander into naturalistic pseudo-philosophical speculation but not for me to show you why your speculation is erroneous?

Tell it to Marlowe -he apparently needs to get he nose out of Stephen Hawkings and into his Bible.

Quantum Physics at its best:

The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.
[Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.]
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
[Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

It should be obvious, then, xzins. Arminianism has to be true. For how could an Arminian God "inspire" the writers of the Scriptures? That would be interfering with their "Free-Will" -now wouldn't it???? It must be, then, that mere fallible men wrote a fallibe book called the Bible.

Jean

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