The term translated “foreknew” (proginōskō) is used 5 times in the New Testament: Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pt. 1:2, 20.[1] Three of these passages have to do with the salvation of man (Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pt. 1:2) and two of them with God’s foreknowledge of Christ himself as a Savior who would die (Acts 2:23; 1 Pt. 1:20).[2] In all five instances the verb does not speak merely of a simple foreknowledge or even middle knowledge of what persons would or might do (or of whether or not they would believe). Rather it denotes that God determined beforehand to bring about certain situations or a certain intimate relationship with one(s) that involves his blessings (a person to be saved or of the Son’s mission). In the texts concerning Jesus Christ, the Father determined beforehand that the Son would be blessed as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of sinners. In 1 Peter 1:2 Peter writes that saints are elected according to God’s foreknowledge. He chooses them based upon whatever foreknowledge is. Yet, to determine what more specifically it means and to see that it means something other than awareness of what would or might happen, we need to turn to the background for the word.
The background to this verb is found in the Old Testament.[3] God’s knowledge is vast. His thoughts number more than the grains of the sand (Ps. 139:18), his understanding is infinite (Ps. 147:5). Yet, “there is [also] an intimacy about God’s knowledge: it reaches even to people’s thoughts (Ps. 139:2) and to the motives of the heart (Prov. 16:2; Is. 66:18).”[4] Isaiah deals with God’s foreknowledge more than any other book of the Old Testament. For him, knowing future events shows that Yahweh is the true God, above mere idols (41:20-29; 42:9; 44:7, 25; 45:21). God also foretold Cyrus’ restoration of Israel from captivity (44:24-45:13; cf. Ezra 1:1-4). Yet, some would ask in our time: “But how can this be? How can God know the future free actions of a human?”[5] It appears that the Old Testament would argue that whatever answer is given must take into account God’s absolute sovereignty and unconditional foreordiation: ‘The king’s heart is in the hand of Yahweh; he directs it like a canal wherever he pleases’ (Prov. 21:1).”[6]
Even more to the point, Jeremiah 1:5 provides background for “foreknow.” There we read, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you as a prophet to the nations.” Here, in context, the verb “knew” (Hebrew: yada`; LXX: epistamai) connotes more than mere awareness.[7] It appears to be synonymous to other places in the Old Testament where the verb yada` (“know”) connotes “choose” or “determine to focus upon with special blessings” (Gen. 18:19; Amos 3:2 [here the LXX has ginōskō, a cognate of proginōskō]), which have behind them passages where the “know” verbs clearly mean more than “have awareness” or “be acquainted with,” but rather “enter into intimate relationship” (cf. also Gen. 4:1).
Because of this background, we should not be surprised to discover that in Psalm 1:6 for God to “know” a group of individuals can also be virtually synonymous with being focused on them to give saving blessings and true life: “For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.” Here “knows” (Hebrew: yada`; LXX: ginōskō) is opposite of “perish” (Hebrew: 'abad; LXX: apollymi). The verb “perish” in this context and many others (Pss. 68:2; 73:27; Is. 60:12; Lk. 13:3, 5; John 3:16) connotes the undergoing of God’s eternal judgment, i.e. the opposite of true and full life.[8] The background of this word used in this manner is God’s judgment of Israel by removing them from their promised land due to their covenant breaking (Dt. 30:18; Josh. 23:16), a type of the ultimate judgment for sin.
We discover similar uses of “know” in the New Testament, some of which most likely are influenced by the Old Testament. In John 10:27-28 the apostle records words of Jesus and uses the verb ginōskō (“know”) to speak of entering into an intimate relationship (a saving relationship) with others: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish,[9] and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” It is obvious the Lord is not speaking of mere awareness of his sheep. Based upon context, as well as the Old Testament background we have covered, his knowing of them is a turning of his attention in their way to save and enter saving relationship—to give saving blessings.
A similar use (but in this case used of men toward men and men toward the Lord Jesus) is found in 1 John 3:1, where the apostle attributes the lack of acknowledgment, care, and respect (similar to relationship) for Christians by the un-saved world to the fact that they don’t have those affections for (or relationship with) Jesus Christ: “The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him” (ginōskō in both instances).[10]
Finally, in 1 Corinthians 2:2 the Apostle Paul affirmed to the Corinthians that when he was among them, he had determined not to focus intently on anything else as central, except the crucified Jesus: “For I decided to know (eidō) nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” The meaning is not that Paul forgot all knowledge except this. He is focusing upon a sense of “know,” which his readers would have understood, and that focused upon more than mere awareness of information. It is a turning of heart and affection toward this central message and viewing it as more important than all others.
What we discover in the Bible, then, is that “know” verbs—used both with God and with man—often focus upon more than mere awareness, they connote a turning of the heart and affections toward a message or toward others. In the case of God, for him to “know” someone(s) is to turn his heart toward them in order to bestow saving blessings or at least to bless or use them in some special way. For him to foreknow them, most likely, then, appears to mean that God has determined ahead of time to turn his heart and affections toward them to bestow blessings in regard to a special calling and/or in regard to salvation.[11]
Now, returning to Romans 8:29, given the reality that in Romans 9:11 we discover election is not based upon future works done by the individual (including the faith that brings forth the good works), it follows that an understanding of “foreknew” here in this passage, that it is merely an awareness ahead of time, is untenable.[12]
What is more, John Piper also highlights how the thought flow of Romans 8:29-30 affirms this understanding of “foreknew.”
The plain point of this passage is that God is working infallibly to save his people, from foreknowing in eternity past to glorifying in eternity future. None is lost at any stage of redemption along the way.
…Notice that Romans 8:30 says, “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”Focus for a moment on the fact that all whom God calls he also justifies. This calling in verse 30 is not given to all people. The reason we know it is not is that all those who are called are justified—but all people are not justified. So this calling in verse 30 is not the general call to repentance that preachers give or that God gives through the glory of nature (Ps. 19:1-2). Everybody receives that call. The call here is given only to those whom God predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, as verse 30 says…. And this call leads necessarily to justification…. All the called are justified, not just some of them.
But we know that justification is by faith (Romans 5:1). So if all the called are infallibly justified, then the call itself must effect or guarantee the faith, since none can be justified without faith. Between God’s act of predestination and justification there is a divine act of calling. Since justification is only by faith, the calling in view must be the act of God whereby he calls faith into being. And since it necessarily results in justification, it must be effect[ive] or irresistible. None is called (in this sense) who is not justified. All the called are justified. So the calling of verse 30 is the sovereign work of God which brings people to faith by which they are justified.[13]
Piper continues:
Now notice the implication this has for the meaning of “foreknowledge”in verse 29. When Paul says in verse 29, “those whom he foreknew he also predestined,” he can’t mean (as so many try to make him mean) that God knows in advance who will use their power of self-determination to come to faith, so that he can predestine them to sonship on that basis. It can’t mean that, because we have seen from verse 30 that people do not come to faith on their own. They are called effect[ively]. That is why Paul can say that everyone who is called is infallibly justified—justification is by faith, and so the divine call guarantees the faith. It is not the product of self-determination that God responds to. It is the product of God’s grace which God initiates. (emphasis added)
So the foreknowledge of Romans 8:29 is not the mere awareness of something that will happen in the future apart from God’s active grace. Rather it is the kind of foreknowledge referred to in Old Testament texts like Genesis 18:19 (“I have chosen [literally: known] Abraham so that he may charge his children…to keep the way of the Lord”), and Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations”), and Amos 3:2 (“You only [Israel] have I known from all the families of the earth”). As C. E. B. Cranfield says, the foreknowledge of Romans 8:29 is “that special taking knowledge of a person which is God’s electing grace.” Such foreknowledge is virtually the same as election: “Those whom he foreknew (that is, chose) he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.”[14]
When we understand “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 in accordance with its near and far contexts, in accordance with the thought flow of these two verses, in accordance with the Old Testament background, and in accordance with other New Testament uses of the “know” (including “foreknow”) word group, we conclude that a good amplified translation for this clause seems to be: “…those whom he long ago thought of in a saving relationship to himself…”[15] or “those whom in eternity past he determined to turn his heart toward and love in a saving manner with his saving blessings.” It does not speak of simple foreknowledge or middle knowledge (see Introduction and Chapter One for explanations and definitions).
“Once we understand the biblical concept of foreknowledge, we see that God’s doing things in accord with his foreknowledge means that he does them according to what he desires, wants, purposes, wills”[16]—and this includes entering into an intimate relationship with them that brings the blessings of salvation and/or a special mission.[17]
[1] S. M. Baugh, “The Meaning Of Foreknowledge,” in Thomas R. Schreiner, Bruce A. Ware, ed’s., The Grace Of God The Bondage Of The Will, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 188.
[2] It must be noted that in none of the five passages is faith the object of the foreknowledge (as one would expect, if the passages were referring to middle knowledge). When an object is clearly stated, it is always a person(s).
[3] In this discussion I am dependent upon Baugh, “Foreknowledge,” 185-92, for its direction. Yet, I have also added much of the specific content.
The verb proginōskō (or its cognates) is not found in the canonical Old Testament. It appears eight times in the Apocryphal books—only one of which is clearly action on the part of God (Judith 9:6), and which appears to be synonymously parallel to “will/determined” and “prepared”. The rest speak either of a human’s or wisdom-personified’s prior knowledge (Judith 11:19; Wisdom 6:13; 8:8; 18:6; 19:13; 2 Macc. 14:3; 15:8), most of which could be understood similar to how the indeterminist would understand foreknowledge on the part of God, namely awareness ahead of time. Given the lack of Old Testament background for this verb, especially in relation to God, it appears that the best reservoir for understanding how it may be used is to examine how the non-prefixed ginōskō is used, especially since it is used of God in ways that appear to have bearing upon the topic-at-hand.
[4] Ibid., 185.
[5] This question is asked in regard to libertarian (indeterministic) freedom that would require either simple foreknowledge or foreknowledge according to the middle knowledge scheme—a prior knowledge of choices that always involve alternativity.
[6] Baugh, “Foreknowledge,” 185-92.
Isaiah 46:10-11 (a passage dealt with in Chapter Five) comes as close as any in the Bible to setting forth a solution to the puzzle of how foreknowledge relates to God’s sovereign decrees. In that passage three parallel participles proclaim what God has done and will do in regard to Cyrus and Judah’s future deliverance: “declaring…saying… calling.” Though neither proginōskō or ginōskō is used in the LXX (or their equivalents in Hebrew), yet, the text does say with the first participial clause that God is “declaring the end from the beginning.” This could very well be similar to the idea God knows what will happen and so he declares it. Yet, in the other two participial clauses we discover both that God’s future plan is certain (“calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel…”), but also that these future events certainly happen because they flow from his counsel and eternal purpose: “saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” In other words, God does not decide what will happen based upon his knowledge of what humans would do in given circumstances (as if he were dependent upon or limited by such choices). Rather, God’s declaration of what would happen flows out of his counsel and eternal purpose. God, in other words, is the ultimate one who decides and not angels or man. This demands free human choices in the deterministic (compatibilistic) understanding.
[7] Note how it is parallel with “sanctified” and “ordained.” In other words, it suggests a meaning that God, in eternity past, determined to set Jeremiah aside for the blessing of a particular and special calling, a set of tasks as a prophet.
[8] Read in the context of this psalm, for God to know the way of the righteous involves the blessings of life and fructification (v. 3), whereas perishing involves lack of blessing, life, and fructification—all part of God’s judgment (vv. 4-5).
[9] Note how “know” and “perish” are opposing terms here, just as in Psalm 1.
[10] Part of the background to this verse appears to be Isaiah 61:9, where the prophet speaks of the future inaugurated kingdom and New Covenant time in which the nations will come to God and be part of his people in this manner: “Their offspring shall be known (Hebrew: yada`; LXX: ginōskō) among the nations, and their descendants in the midst of the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge (Hebrew: nakar; LXX: epiginōskō) them, that they are an offspring the Lord has blessed.” What is significant about this text is the parallelism between the Hebrew verbs yada` and nakar. The Hiphil form of the latter verb suggests the idea of “acknowledging with honor” (Gesenius’ Lexicon on-line). There is a thread of use of “know” words throughout both testaments which speaks of affection for, the presence of honor and a sense of importance, and the idea of intimacy or relationship—turning toward with praise, honor, or blessing.
See John 8:55 for another time John uses ginōskō to speak of man’s intimate knowledge of, their relationship with, God (or actually the lack thereof).
[11] Feinberg, No One, 519-22, agrees. He writes (522) that so many of the terms in the Old and New Testaments that speaks of knowledge or knowing refer to “knowing by personal relationship and experience. To know someone in this sense…is to make that person on object of concern and acknowledgment and to regard that person favorably. It means having a relationship with that person.” Feinberg continues: “When we add to this the notion of foreknowing, or knowing beforehand, all that is added is that at some time prior to the present, there was a decision to establish such a relationship. Hence, foreknowledge in this sense can be defined as committing oneself beforehand to someone in an act constituting a relationship and making that person an object of care and concern for the one uniting with him.”
[12] Craig, The Only Wise, 34, wrongly asserts the following about the use of “foreknow” in Romans 8:28; 1 Peter 1:1-2: “On the basis of his personally knowing certain individuals, before they come to be, God elects them and foreordains them to glorification. I think we have to allow that this is a plausible interpretation of ‘foreknow’ in these passages.” Elsewhere, Craig, “Calvinism Vs. Molinism,” 73, more specifically argues this verse refers to God’s middle knowledge.
[13] Piper, The Pleasures, 140.
[14] Piper, The Pleasures, 140-41.
[15] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 2000), 676.
[16] Feinberg, No One, 526. Martin Luther, The Bondage Of The Will, J. I. Packer, O. R. Johnston, Translators (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 80, similarly once wrote: “God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to his own immutable, eternal, and infallible will.”
Now that I have explored the biblical usage of the “know” and “foreknow” words, it should also be noted that I am not arguing that “foreknew” and “predestined” are being used as synonyms, nor that “foreknew” merely means “choose” or “elect” as Craig, The Only Wise God, 32, 34, suggests of Calvinists.
[17] Given the strong biblical evidence for how the “know” and “foreknow” words are used elsewhere, it would seem most likely that Peter (who introduces “foreknowledge” with no other indicators of what he means by it) would use the word “foreknowledge” in 1 Pt. 1:2 in a way consistent with this biblical background. Additionally, his strong view of God’s absolute sovereignty, exercised through meticulous providence, present elsewhere in the epistle (e.g. 3:17; 4:19), as well as his strong emphasis on God’s determinative relationship to regeneration in the immediate context (cf. 1:3), would also suggest this understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment