Killer Robot Ninja

What Does Foreknow Mean?

Posted on 21. Sep, 2010 by Les in Theology

Some words in the Bible can be somewhat ambiguous. Usually it has more to do with the modern context of the word than the author’s use. Either way, we often end up with a problem reading the Bible today. What does this word mean in it’s context?

Sometimes the problem can be huge, and can send your theology in a completely wrong direction. As a matter of fact, some cults are built entirely on a few words being misunderstood to mean something they don’t.

Today we’ll concentrate on a word that makes a big difference. If it’s understood one way, God is completely reactionary to what human beings do; and the other way, makes God the proactive initiator of salvation based on nothing in man.

That word is “foreknow”.

Foreseen Faith

There is a theological system that hangs on a doctrine of foreseen faith. That is that before creation, God looked into the future and saw who would believe in Jesus. The ones whom He saw would believe are the ones He chose to save. This, according to the subscribers of the doctrine (we’ll call the doctrine “simple foreknowledge”), is what the Bible means when it talks about “the elect”. So election is not based on God’s sovereign unconditional choice, but election is a conditional reaction to God’s foreknowledge of future events.

I’m convinced this doctrine would not exist if it weren’t for two texts:

“To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:” -1 Peter 1:1-2

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” -Romans 8:29

In both of these texts the proponents of simple foreknowledge believe that “foreknowledge” and “foreknow” are actually shorthand for “foresee who would believe in Jesus”.

Defining Our Terms

Let’s look at the word foreknow. What does the word mean? Can it have multiple meaning? Is there a more obvious meaning in the contexts? Let’s do a little work (Though this study would be better done in the original Greek, I think the translated word is straightforward enough for those who don’t know Greek, like myself, to grasp the issues.)

Simply defined ‘fore’ means previous, and ‘know’ means have knowledge of. So the simplest definition we can conjur is ‘previously have knowledge of’. Good start.

Biblical data also shows us that ‘know’ can also have a few other connotations.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” -Jeremiah 1:5

Here the parallelism demonstrates “before I formed you in the womb” is to “before you were born” as “I knew you” is to “I consecrated you”. So we see that know can mean set aside, or consecrated.

“It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought…” -Hosea 13:5

Here the Bible uses ‘knew’ to speak of God’s providential care for Israel in the wilderness. Know can mean ‘care for’.

“I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” -Matthew 7:23

In this text Jesus certainly isn’t talking about bare knowledge, but some kind of intimate relational knowledge. It’s not that He didn’t know of the false professors that cast out demons in His name, it’s that he wasn’t their Savior by relationship. So know can also mean ‘intimate relationship’

The Bible uses this word often to portray sexual intercourse as well. “Adam knew Eve”(Genesis 4:1), “Cain knew his wife” (Genesis 4:17), “Elkanah knew Hannah his wife” (1 Samuel 1:19).

I’m comfortable collapsing all of these alternate definitions into a general concept of intimate, relational, love.

So here are the definitions we have to work with for foreknow:
1. have previous knowledge (simplest definition)
2. previously have intimate love for (more complex, but very Biblical)
3. previously see faith exercised in (not a definition of the word, but believed to be shorthand)

Working With Our Definitions

Since 1 Peter 1:1-2 simply states that election is based on foreknowledge, we’ll concentrate on Romans 8:29, since the text gives us an order, and a result. Whatever conclusion we arrive at will also apply to 1 Peter.

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” -Romans 8:29

Let’s replace the word foreknew with out definitions, and see how each one fares.

1. For those whom he [had previous knowledge of] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Ok, so we have an omniscient God who can see all things, and all people. Good. The obvious problem is that that God had previous knowledge of everyone, and since there is no delineator to narrow it down, we’d be saying that all people are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. Unless we’re Universalists, this will not do. Next!

2. For those whom he [previously had intimate love for] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Now we see a cohesive, if not offensive, thought. It would appear, as in Matthew 7:23 that God has an intimate love for a specific group of people, that he doesn’t share with all people (depart from me I never knew you). If this is the correct understanding it would gel very well with God’s election of Israel over against all other nations, and the New Testament talk of the Church being God’s “elect”. Look what Paul says about the same predestination in Ephesians:

“In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…” -Ephesians 1:5

3. For those whom he [previously saw would believe in Jesus] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Again, unlike the first definition, we have a mostly cohesive thought. The first problem is just the simple flow of the sentence. We’re coupling a completely passive verb (observing) with an active verb (predestining) and linking them with “also”. This is not the way cause and effect is communicated. We don’t say “those whom he observed, he also did something with”, we’d say “those whom he observed, he in turn did something with.”

Secondly we’re trying to force the idea of foreseen events (personal excercise of faith) into a context of foreknown people. It doesn’t say God would know what they would do (true as that may be), it says He knew them.

The much bigger problem is that the word “foreknow” simply can’t be defined by such a loaded definition. It would have to be proven with more Biblical data, that the author was implying something so in-depth as a foreseen decision, and uses a single word for brevity. But again, there is no other Biblical data to build this doctrine. The expanded definition is built, circularly, on the very texts that require the expanded definition to give the desired result. Until it can be proven that ‘foreknow’ should actually be understood as ‘foreknow who would have faith’, it makes no sense to understand it that way. The only reason anyone would do so is because of a tradition passed down to them by a theology needing the word to have such a definition.

Definition 2 is the only one that can be used meaningfully. Now let’s try this definition in the other text, 1 Peter 1:1-2.

“To those who are elect… according to the [previous love] of God the Father…”

Perfect. We see God actively electing a people based on the love He had before the foundation of the world. Sounds very similar to:

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— …” -Ephesians 2:4-5

The Killer Text

I’ve demonstrated that only one definition of the word ‘foreknow’ can confidently be used in this context. Now you may ask if the actual word ‘foreknew’ is used in any other place in the new testament in a way that can support the definition I’ve concluded.

Paul, only 3 chapters later in Romans uses this exact same word in a way that makes it abundantly clear that this is the proper way to understand this word in context.

“I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” -Romans 11:1-2

Paul is not talking about foreseen faith. As a matter of fact he’s talking about national Israel who largely DO NOT believe. Paul is explaining that God has not turned His back on His fore-loved people.

Now, it should be noted that while this demonstrates the meaning of the word, it’s not being used in the same context. One group He’s fore-loved and elected as His chosen people under the old covenant (and has not abandoned them now). The other group He’s fore-loved and elected for salvation in Christ. Those “who are loved by God and called to be saints…” -Romans 1:7.

Romans 11:1-2 demonstrates that Paul does not use ‘foreknew’ as shorthand for ‘foreseen faith’, but that he is speaking of unconditional electing love. He is referring to a special kind of love that God does not have for all people. He is referring to a purposed choice God made before the creation of the world to love a people because of “nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-” -Romans 9:11

Now with this amazing fore-love in mind, let’s see what God does with these people.

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” -Romans 8:29-30

God chose a people based solely on His good pleasure and love, then he guaranteed those people would never see the flames of Hell. All of salvation is the active work of the Lord, alone. Even His foreknowledge.

Tags: arminianism, bible study, doctrine, election, featured, foreknowledge, free-will, interpretation, reformed, salvation, sovereignty, Theology