Adam Clarke says it is those whom God knows will persevere to the end.
Albert Barnes says, "It may mean that God foreknew all the events which would ever occur, and that he saw reasons why they should be selected rather than others; or that he foreknew all that could be made to bear on their salvation; or that he foreknew all that he would himself do to secure their salvation; or that he foreknew them as having been designated by his own eternal counsels; or that he foreknew all that could be accomplished by their instrumentality; or that he saw that they would believe; but it should not be assumed that the word means necessarily any one of these things."
David Guzik says, "This foreknowledge includes prior knowledge of our response to the gospel, but is not solely dependent on it."
Jameison-Faussett-Brown says "God's foreknowledge is not the perception of any ground of action out of Himself."
The People's New Testament says, "Their election and salvation was in accordance with God's predetermined purpose to save men through the gospel."
John Wesley says, "True predestination, or fore-appointment of God is, 1. He that believeth shall be saved from the guilt and power of sin. 2. He that endureth to the end shall be saved eternally. 3. They who receive the precious gift of faith, thereby become the sons of God; and, being sons, they shall receive the Spirit of holiness to walk as Christ also walked." (Wesley, then, affirms a general "predestination" that is dependent entirely on "He that believeth", "He that endureth", and "They who receive".)
All of this to say ... there is a vast difference of opinion among learned men of God.
John Gill says it is "the sovereign grace, good will, and pleasure of God, or the everlasting love of God the Father, which is the cause of, and has given birth to the act of election, is meant by foreknowledge, joined with affection, delight, and approbation; knowledge, and foreknowledge, as ascribed to the divine Being, often signify such things." Now, perhaps we ought not trust Mr. Gill, as he is definitely of the Reformed type. So we ask Jameison-Faussett-Brown again. They go on to say, "The Hebrew and Greek 'know' include approval and acknowledging as one's own." This coincides with Gill's premise, that "foreknow" doesn't mean prescience -- merely knowing in advance -- but includes the concept of loving in advance. Is this possibly in mind here?
In Jesus's High Priestly prayer, He offers this definition of eternal life: "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). Interesting that knowing God is the definition of eternal life. Elsewhere, Jesus makes this startling, even frightening statement:
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you ...'" (Matt. 7:22-23).Now, this is odd. "I never knew you." Isn't He omniscient? Doesn't He know everyone? Apparently, then, in biblical terms there is "to know" and there is "to know". One is purely knowledge, and the other is ... a relationship.
I would submit, then, that this is what is in mind in 1 Peter 1 as well as Rom. 8:29. If God chose us based on His foreknowledge of our choice of Him, it would cause serious problems. It would violate Rom. 9:16. It would make God a "respecter of persons" in that He chooses people based on something about them rather than according to His own purpose (Rom. 9:11). This cannot be the "foreknowledge" according to which we are chosen. The "foreknowledge" upon which Election is based is not knowledge of something outside of God, but God's personal, prior relationship with His elect. As such, before we are born God is preparing our paths. As we come into the world, He has already set in motion all that is required so that, at the right time, those who were chosen become truly His. Therefore, the "foreknowledge" according to which we are chosen is the special, sovereign love He places on us in advance, "from the foundation of the world".
2 comments:
hi stan
i have a problem with the foreknowledge issue in this respect. what ever capacity to which God knows something, it must be apart from space and time. so any explanation of God's foreknowledge is oxymoronic in nature. foreknowledge is just a word used by us to communicate an idea about when something came to the mind of God.in addition, if God must look into the future to determine if you made a good or bad choice, then he is not omnicient. because He would then be dependant upon future events to occure before he can make a determination of its merit. also it would also mean that God is locked into the same time and space continuem that we are.
this is one of those cases whereby we are better off just taking the text at face value and concede that we cannot understand the bounderies of forknowledge.
rather like you i place the greater emphisis upon the fact that God knows me and has always known me. what a privilege...
bob
Actually, in his commentary, John Wesley says something very similar about foreknowledge. He says that Peter is "Speaking after the manner of men. Strictly speaking, there is no foreknowledge, no more than afterknowledge, with God: but all things are known to Him as present from eternity to eternity. This is therefore no other than an instance of the divine condescension to our low capacities."
Post a Comment