Chapter # 11 Paragraph # 1 Study # 2
June 30, 2009
Lincolnton, N.C.
(507)
1769 Translation:
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to
the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then
is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if
it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
1901 ASV Translation:
2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel:
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
- I. Paul's Evidence For His Denial of God's Casting Away of His People.
- A. In the first place, there is the reality of "foreknowledge".
- 1. Paul uses the same word in his declaration, "God has not cast away His people", as he used in the original question, "Has God cast away His people?".
- 2. His declaration of denial is rooted in the phrase "whom He foreknew".
- a. The word translated "foreknew" is a word that means "to have an experienced based knowledge before the present time".
- 1) Acts 26:5 presses this word into service to describe the "foreknowledge" certain people had of Paul's life before his conversion. It's meaning is clear: they had rubbed shoulders with Paul sufficiently to have obtained a relatively clear grasp of his attitudes and actions. They, he said, could serve as "witnesses" in a legal, trial setting if they were so inclined. This means their "knowledge" was of sufficient depth to give accurate information and this knowledge was "before this present time".
- 2) Romans 8:29 tells us that "foreknowledge" on God's part preceded His predetermination of the saints in respect to His long range goal for them.
- 3) 2 Peter 3:17 uses the word in its typical sense in reference to the idea that if one "knows ahead of time", he/she can make better decisions in regard to deceptions.
- 4) The noun form of the word (from which we get our term "prognosis") is only used twice in the New Testament; once in Acts 2:23, where it is used in connection to the "determinate counsel" of God in respect to Jesus of Nazareth and His "being delivered" (ekdotos) to the death of the cross, and then again in 1 Peter 1:2, where it is used by Peter to identify the "standard" according to which a person is "elected". There is a connection between 1 Peter 1:2 and Romans 11:2 exists in that "election" is also in view in Romans 11:5.
- b. One of the difficulties of "foreknowledge" by God of "His people" is that there were no "people" at the time when God "foreknew" them if we take Romans 8:29 as a "pre-creation event". This seems to mean that God had an experienced based knowledge of something (some people) for whom there was no "experience" at the time in view. They did not "exist". This pushes us to evaluate what "experienced-based knowledge" actually means. In the Acts 26:5 text, Paul was appealing to the fact that the people who could serve as witnesses of his former behavior had actually seen and heard him act. This is the heart of the idea of "experienced based knowledge before the present time". So, in what sense can God be declared to have such knowledge when those He supposedly "experienced" did not even exist?
- 1) On the one hand, "experienced based" is fundamentally the issue of how human beings come to "know". One of those ways is "reason" (taking data and, by thought, moving logically from one bit of information to the next and then again to the next until a "conclusion" is reached: this "conclusion" is then said to be "known"). Another of those ways is "experience" (where the "data" is gained by empirical means -- through the five senses -- and then marshalled by "logical thinking" into a form of "knowledge"). Because the process of "reasoning" is more difficult when the data consists of principles and much easier when the data consists of sensory input, we have different words to describe the kind of "knowledge" we have. But, the bottom line is that all forms of "knowing" are "thought-based, logically-produced" realities. Some are simply "faster" in coming to conclusions than others. This means that human beings need, and are able, to grow in their "knowledge" by different means. God has no such need or capacity.
- 2) On the other hand, since God has no such need, we have to ask why He would be said to have "experience based knowledge before the present time". The answer seems to be that God has to "accomodate" Himself to our weaknesses and use language in a way that is more "human" than "divine" in order to make the impressions upon us that He wishes to make. Experienced-based knowledge is, for humans, the most "relational" kind of knowledge. The root verb for this kind of knowing is used when the Bible says that a man "knew" his wife and she conceived. Thus, for God to elevate the concept of a relational interaction in man's mind, He is pretty much under necessity to use the words that communicate that to man's mind -- even if it tends to create some peripheral problems because of the way man's grasp of language alters his grasp of God.
- 3) The conclusion of this matter seems, then, to be this: the use of "foreknowledge" in reference to God and people fundamentally refers to God's active entrance into the very particular issues of a person as an individual with whom He has determined to develop a Life-relationship.
a) This is actually strongly reinforced by the use of the same root word by Jesus in His "prophetic" (requiring "foreknowledge") declaration in Matthew 7:23: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." For this to be true, Jesus can not have "known" with this "relationally-based" knowledge. This is, obviously, not a denial of omniscience, but, just as obviously, it is a denial of any personal relationship with the "workers of iniquity". Based upon this statement by Jesus, it would be impossible for God to "cast away" someone with an "I never knew you" statement if He had actually "known" them at any time.
- b) This also explains how ready Paul was to say that God separated him from His mother's womb and called him by grace (Galatians 1:15). Since those whom God "foreknows" are "relational objects" of His knowledge, and not simply objects of His omniscience, all of the details of their experience can be seen under the microscope of His involvement unto their Life.
- c) This also explains why Paul shifted from "ye have known God" to ye "are known of God" in Galatians 4:9. The issue is not, ultimately, whether we think we have a relationship with God, but whether God has actually entered into a real relationship with us. Paul's question is this: How can it be that one, with whom God has entered into a relationship, can turn back to their former bondage? This is a potent question because it is set in the context of Galatians 4:11 where Paul freely admits his doubt of the reality of their profession of salvation and Galatians 4:20 where he also freely declared his "perplexity" regarding them. His resolution is found in Galatians 5:10 where he claims that he has come to confidence that they really were converted by his gospel because the Lord has persuaded him of that fact. Their behavior certainly was no basis for such a "persuasion".