Foreknow, foreordain

Both these words translate the same Greek verb TrpoyiyiiaKnv, the former in Ro S-*, the latter in 1 P 1-°. ' Fore- ordain' does not appear before IGll, hut Tindale introduced 'ordain before' in 1 P P°, which was the more surprising that in Ro 8^ he translated both verbs correctly, oO? irpoiyvoj kclI TrpowpiacVy ' those which he knewe before, he also ordeyned before.' Both verbs are rare in English, the earliest certain example of ' foreordain ' found by Oxf. Eng. Dirt.

being Norton's tr° of Calvin's Institutes (lotill, iii. 202, ' Some to be forcordeined to saluatioii, other some to destruction,' though the ptcp. is found in the Prol. to Wyclif's Mark (1420), 'The for-ordenede John.' RV tr. 1 P l-" correctly ' was foreknown,' and retains ' foreordain ' for irpoopi^im wherever it occurs, Ac 4-' (A V ' determine before '), Ro8-°"°(AV 'predestinate'), 1 Co 2' (A V 'ordain'), Eph !'• " (AV ' predestinate ').

FOREKNOWLEDGE As an attribute of God, foreknowledge is simply a special case or a.spect of omniscience. God knows all things, therefore not only the present and the past, but the future also, must lie open to His sight. This is implied in all His pronii.'ies, whether they refer to the individual oiilv, as where ollspring is promised to Abraham (Gii 18'*), or are on a national scale, aa when the glorj' of Abraham's descendants is foretold (Gn 18" I. It is implied also in the tcnniing.

i which God gives, or causes to be given, as in the story of Lot and Sodom (Gn lit), or in that of Mo.ses before Pharaoh (Ex 8-11). To an earlier Pharaoh God shows in n dream 'what he is about to do' (Gn 41*), and 62 FOEEK^^OWLEDGE FOREKNOWLEDGE Bimilarly, at a later period, to Nebuchadnezzar ' what shall be in the latter days' (Dn 2'«- »).

In all such cases, however, it may be objected that they are leas examples of foreknowledge than declarations regarding His own future action on the part of One who has full power of doing what He wills ; that they illustrate therefore omnipotence rather than omniscience. This close association of the two attributes must always be allowed for in the usage of Scripture.

Where all events are re- ferred to the direct action of the Deit/y, it is not strange that He should know and foretell what He is about to do. It may be the sense that thus to foreknow and bring about events demonstrates the existence and activity of the divine, or it may be that the course of the world was already regarded as possessing a relative independence, which forms the ground of the appeal to the foreknowledge of God as proving His superiority to the idols of the nations.

Such an appeal occurs more than once in Deutero-Isaiah.e.y. Is 42" Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare ; before they spring forth I tell you of them ' ; 46'° ' Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done ; sayin". My counsel shaJl stand ' ; cf. also 44" 48'- '• '. In the NT Jesus asserts foreknowledge on the part of God of wliat is yet hidden even from the Son (Mk IS**); and St.

James (Ac 15'*), quoting the words of Amos (9"- "), substitutes for 'tne Lord that doeth this,' ' the Lord who maketh these things known from the beginning of the world.' All the references, indeed, to the fullilment of prophecy, which are so frequently found in the NT, are intelligible only on the assumption that they are taken as evidencing the foreknowledge of God.

It is, however, in its application, not to events generally, but to salvation, and that both of the individual and of the community, that the question of the divine foreknowledge has arrested the attention, engaged the thoiights, and sometimes tried the hearts of men. True piety refers all things to God, and rejoices to see in the individual life of faith and love the manifestation of divine activity.

It seems to it that, were the case other- wise, tiiere could be no assurance of salvation, and the peace which is the most priceless possession of God s children would be impossible to them. It is argued that, as God is both able and wUling to bnng about the salvation of the individual. He must know beforehand, not only His purpose to do so, but its fullilment.

We refer salvation, along w ith all other events, to the Divine Will ; but, as God is not orjy Supreme WiU but Supreme In- telligence, before, or accompanying the forthputting of that will there must be an act of knowledge. Thus foreknowledge comes to be associated with Election and Predestination (which see) as a constitutive element in the ultimate ground of the salvation made known in Christ.

But in proportion as this conclusion removes difficulties on the one side, it raises them on the other. While theoretic- ally admitting the determinative influence of the divine action upon the course of events in general, we recognize that to us they are contingent, and we are not perplexed by a difficulty which we scarcely feel. But with the question of personal salvation it is difi'erent.

Foreknowledge here im- plies a determinative action which seems to leave no room for choice, or moral freedom. Further, experience shows that there are gradations in the extent of spiritual privUeges accorded, and infinite variations m the degree to which men avail them- selves of these. Are we then to argue a limitation of the divine power, or of the divine will, to save ?

The interests of piety and morality, the facts of religion and experience, seem incompatible here, the one demanding an absoluteness of determination which the other cannot admit. It is the difficulty which has divided schools of earnest men and powerful thinkers, like the Augustinian and the Pelagian, the Cahinist and the Arniinian, which in various forms and degrees enters into and moulds men's whole conception of the religious life.

Into its later phases we cannot here enter ; we must confine ourselves to stating the data of the problem as they are presented in Scripture. In the OT the question in this special form scarcely occurs.

The prophets regard Israel as having been chosen from among the peoples of the earth to be God's special heritage (Dt 7"-', Neh 9'- «, Is41»-» 44'- ') ; but the thought of a decree allecting the eternal destiny of individuals could not present itself to those who had only a dim conception of the future life, and who regarded religious olessings as coming to the individual only through his meuiber- ship of the elect nation.

In the NT the difficulty is tor the most part not acutely felt, the two sides of the problem being in turn referred to « ithout any apparent sense of antagonism or inconipati- bUity. Thus Jesus recognizes the Father's action in revealing to babes what is hidden from the wi.se and prudent (Mt 11"- ^), declares that to some it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, while from others it is withheld (Mt 13"''"), says that many are called, but few chosen (Mt 22" ; cf. Jn 6" 12^").

On the other hand, He preaches the gospel of repentance (Mt 4"), and laments over .Jerusalem for neglecting or abusing her opportunities (Mt 23"). Nowhere is it made an excuse for the rejection of salvation that any one has not been included in the saving purpose of God. It is in connexion with certain passages in the writings of St. Paul that the questions in regard to foreknowledge definitely arise. These are two.

How far does foreknowledge imply predestination, decision of the fate of an individual anterior to his personal existence and therefore to his own moral choice ? and. What is the relation of foreknowledge to the ground of salvation ; is there anything fore- known which accounts for the saving choice falling upon one and passing by another ? In Ro 8^- *> we read : ' For whom he foreknew (oBs ir-poiyfu), he also foreordained (AV did predestinate) to be conformed to the image of his Son, . .

and whom he fore- ordained, them he also called ; and whom he called, them he also justified ; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.' Here the process of salva- tion is represented as a chain, as a succession of stages, of which the origin was a divine purpose based upon a divine foreknowledge.

The word TrpoyLfuuKuj in its ordinary classical use means simply 'to know previously,' 'to have knowledge of beforehand,' and hence, since 'all demonstra- tion depends on previously existing knowledge' {^k TrpoyivdjaKOfjJvuf Taaa 5idaaKa\ia, Arist. Eth. A^ic> vi. 3), present knowledge leads to forecasting the future by tracing out the probable course of events ; cf. 2 P 3" ' Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware.'

But, with men, the course of events can at best be foreknown only with a high degree of probability, it is never more than an inference founded on experience ; but God's foreknowledge must, we argue, be absolute, and involves the actual occurrence of that which is the object of it, — if it refers to time 7rp67i'u(ri! seems inevitably to involve TrpbS«n^.

There is, however, a certain vagueness in the way in which irpoiyvu ia used in Ro 8-^, w hich is still more apparent in Ro U' 'God did not cast off his people which he fore- knew.' There is something wanting to fill up the conception. Cremer (Blbl.-Theol. Lex.)

therefore suggests taking these passages in connexion with another class of passages, where the simple verb ia used, of which I Co 8' may be taken as an example • FOREKNOWLEDGE FOREPART 63 •If any man loveth God, the same is known of him ' {(yvaarai inr' aiiTOv). The union between God and man thus expressed is represented in Tpoiyi>u as anticipated and determined upon ' in tlie divine counsels before their manifestation in history.'

Another shade of meaning which TrpoyivwaKciv in these texts appears to bear is that in tlie chain of events leading to salvation it denotes tlie se/f- deterinination of God to that work. With the irpo- op/fetr the first active step to its fulfilment lias been taken, but the foreknow ledge of God implies His own adoption of the plan. It thus, as Cremer remarks, ideally precedes even the iKkiyeadai of Eph 1^" Even as he chose (^leX^faro) us in him before the foundation of the world . .

having foreordained (irpoopiiras) UB unto adoption as sons,' 4K\4ye<rBai expressing ' a determination directed to the objects of the fellow- ship' into w hich God has resolved to enter with His people. nptryvuKTii tlius ' denotes the foreordained fellowship between God and the objects of His saving counsels, God's self-determination to enter into such fellowship preceding the realization thereof.'

This definition establishes the place of foreknowledge in the order of the saving acts, but does not free it of the difficulty which its connexion with that order involves. In the self-determination of God to save, if this has an individual application, the whole problem is raised. It is evident that the apostle, anxious to establish the Christian's faith upon a sure foundation, overlooks for the moment the bearing of his explanation upon the question of moral choice.

There is no reason to think that he would ignore the latter. His Epistles are fuU of appeals which recognize the moral nature and responsibilities of man.

But the key to his attitude is probably to be found in that personal experience ■which he describes in Gal V, where, as Lightfoot remarks, he heaps up words to emphasize the point he is maintaining (' the sole agency of God as dis- tinct from his own efibrts '), ' the good pleasure of God, who separated me (set me apart, devoted me to a special purpose), even from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace.'

As he felt that he had been destined and was being prepared for his high office, even when he had been unconscious of it, and had been making in the opposite direction, so it was with humanity in general ; man was mov- ing towards the goal prepared for him, and God's purpose in spite of human recalcitrancy was being realized. But neither in the one case nor in the other did the leadings of Providence mean that the human will was being set aside.

But now, turning to the other question, has the rpoiyvu of Ro 8^ 1 1'' any special qualitative import ? God knows, foreknows. His people — what consti- tutes them His people, is there anything in them or about them whicli accounts for foreknowledge becoming foreordination, which explains the ground of election ? Here opinions ditler, and it is probable that each exegete will read into the word what agrees with his general doctrinal standpoint.

Thus, to take one or two examples, Cremer appears to think there is no such import, the conception being complete in itself, and the word not indicating ' a decision come to concerning any one ' ; Grimm (NT Lex., Thayer's ed.) holds the meaning to be that ' God foreknew that they would love him, or (with reference to what follows) he foreknew them to be fit to be conformed to the likeness of his Son.' This explanation (that of foreseen love) is adoi)ted also by Weiss [NT Theology.

% 88), while Godet (liomans, Eng. tr. ii. 109) takes ' faith' to be the other object of foreknowledge, tlie condition of salvation wliich God foreknew that His people would fulfil. It is doubtful, however, whethei St. Paul had followed out his thought on this side into a definite form. He vas concerned with the purpose of God, not with the ground of that purpose.

Both in Gal 1", as we have seen, in reference to himself, and in Eph P- " in reference to the Church, he lays stress upon the fact that God's action is ' according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace ' — ' according to tlie purpose of him who worketh aU things after the counsel of his own will.'

To these indications from the Pauline writings, the occurrences of TrpoyivauKeiv and Tplr/vuxris in other parts of NT (Ac 2^ 26', 1 P P-*, 2P 3") add nothing in regard to the questions we have been considering. St. Paul founds upon election, as the method appoLated by Providence for the education of humanity, his religious philosophy of historj'. Some are set apart for special privilege, but have also laid upon them special duty.

The Jews are set aside until the Gentiles be come in ; salvation is extended to the Gentiles in order that the Jews might come to share its blessings ; but ' God does not cast ofl' his people \\ hich he fore- knew ' ; His purpose is not abandoned, but worked oui according to the dictates of infinite wisdom and perfect love. It has been suggested (Plumptre, Epp. of J^t.

Peter, in ' Cambridge Bible for Schools ') that in the words ' the foreknowledge of God the Father ' (1 P P) 'we find, perhaps, the secret of their (the apostles') acceptance of this aspect of the divine government.

The choice and the knowledge were not those of an arbitrary sovereign will, capricious as are the sovereigns of earth, in its favours and antipathies, seeking only to manifest its power, but of a Father whose tender mercies were over all His works, and who sought to mani- fest His love to all His children.' ' In what way,' says the same writer, 'the thought of man's freedom to will was reconcilable with that of God's electing purpose, the writers of NT did not care to discuss.

They felt, we may believe, instinctively, half- unconsciously, that the problem was insoluole, and were content to accept the two beliefs, which cannot logically be reconciled.'

In this condition of unsolved antinomy the Bible leaves all such doctrines as those of grace and election, a heritage of discussion and speculation to age after age of the Church ; yet, however diiticult to the intellect, constantly receiving its practical solution and reconciliation in the Christian experience of the soul, which is at once conscious of its ovra moral responsibUity and of its dependence upon God. Literature.

— In addition to the authorities cited at>ove, see Sanday-IIeadlam, Romans, U.cc. ; the Biblical Tlieolcigifs of Beyschlaj;, Bovon, and Scbmid ; Cunningham, Historical Theo- logy, ii. 441 ff. ; K. MiiUer, IMf- gottliche Zuvorersehunff und Erwuhlumj ; Bruce, providential Onlcr o/ the World (1897), Lect. X. ; and the Literature at end of articles Election, peedestimation. a. Stewart.