Foreknow

[BaptistBob]

You argued this here: "The inference, if any, is that God chose Christ because he was foreknown to be unblemished." So, yes, you did argue for that.

No, you misunderstood me. I assumed (wrongly) that the previous context and the content of the paragraph would inform your understanding. The ambiguity is probably my fault.

Look at the sentence in the entire paragraph (removed from the context of the overall post) and look at the context it provides.

I said:

The time contrast is quite clear, as I pointed out above. The inference, if any, is that God chose Christ because he was foreknown to be unblemished. He was already more valuable than the "silver and gold" mentioned in the preceding text because the would be unblemished at the time of the sacrifice. Therefore, if you must, he was chosen because he was unblemished, more precious than silver or gold. God knew it in advance.

In the context of the post, I argued for the time contrast, as opposed to your interpretation of "chosen." In my summary paragraph (above) I make one final comment about my position in the first sentence and then turn to make one final comment about yours. The rest of the paragraph is about theological "inference," not authorial intent or meaning.

To eliminate any doubt about what I was talking about, notice a couple of things. First off, I said "any inference." If I were talking about the passage's meaning, it should some as a shock to anyone reading that I had a doubt that the passage had any meaning, right? Yet what I am doing there is saying that, given your concern about God's choice of Christ, we might make an inference. We might also, for example, make an inference about the preexistence of Christ or a hypostatic union. I don't, however, think the verse is explicitly teaching us about those things, although, along with most commentaries, I would have mentioned the possible "inferences" in passing.

If any doubt remains about my intent, notice that I am talking about the "choice" of Christ, even though I have repeatedly objected to that meaning. Given your misunderstanding of my intent, I'm a little surprised that you didn't simply say that I was agreeing with your meaning of the word, and was simply getting the subject wrong.

Secondly, to the bolded sentence above, the grammar will not allow for that statement.

That's right, since I was talking about a theological inference, but not the meaning of the verse. I had already talked about the content of the verse, so I was offering you some common theological ground on which to stand, albeit not what you would have preferred.

Given what I have just explained, most of the rest of your post is moot. I must comment, however, on this:

This is a new grammatical thought (though not unrelated) and is the beginning of a new sentence. V. 19 ends with the word Christ in the genitive singular masculine and it is immediately followed by the participle "he was known" in the genitive singular masculine.

As already stated, the μεν...δε construction shows this to be an encapsulated idea--stating "indeed He [Jesus] was chosen in the past before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest recently."

So, there is no way that your conclusion is accurate, unless of course you believe the reader is the final arbiter of meaning and not the text itself.



Again, that's not what the text says. Jesus Himself was made manifest, not theology.



The contrast of the μεν...δε does make a contrast between the past and present, that is true. But it is not connected to the previous verse except to identify Jesus as the One foreknown in the participle.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I didn't mean to argue that theology itself was foreknown. I mean that Jesus as the Messiah described in the theology of the preceding text was foreknown. The subject is known already because of the previous context, and the pronoun is understood and supplied by the reader, with reference to Christ. This is why all the commentaries go on to talk about his role as the sacrificial Messiah/Christ when discussing this section. The sentence in context of the paragraph informs our understanding, just as my sentence (discussed at the top of this post) in the context of my paragraph informs our understanding. Hermeneutical circle.

 

[Allan]

The Lord is not obligated to anyone. He owes no one anything.

I didn't say he is obligated to anyone (meaning men) but that He IS obligated to Himself to do what He has said He will do.

 

[The Archangel]

I mean that Jesus as the Messiah described in the theology of the preceding text was foreknown. The subject is known already because of the previous context, and the pronoun is understood and supplied by the reader, with reference to Christ.

For the sake of eliminating misunderstandings, please explain further what you mean by this?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

For the sake of eliminating misunderstandings, please explain further what you mean by this?

Blessings,

The Archangel

What I mean is that Christ is foreknown as the suffering savior, mentioned in the preceding verse. The text does not work as a logical positivist would have it, with the author's intent being derived from the value of words outside their context, such as a mathematical notation. Hence the discipline of hermeneutics.

 

[The Archangel]

What I mean is that Christ is foreknown as the suffering savior, mentioned in the preceding verse. The text does not work as a logical positivist would have it, with the author's intent being derived from the value of words outside their context, such as a mathematical notation. Hence the discipline of hermeneutics.

So...is Christ chosen to be the suffering savior or did God see that He would be such beforehand?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

So...is Christ chosen to be the suffering savior or did God see that He would be such beforehand?

Blessings,

The Archangel

Neither, per se. The word means "know beforehand," most likely indicating, in this context, that God thought of Christ as such prior to that time. This is a common interpretation among Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike (comp. Grudem and Marshall).

 

[The Archangel]

Neither, per se. The word means "know beforehand," most likely indicating, in this context, that God thought of Christ as such prior to that time. This is a common interpretation among Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike (comp. Grudem and Marshall).

It can't mean know beforehand in this passage. Again, in the context, Christ was foreknown, not things about Him or things concerning Him. As the μεν...δε construction and conversation shows it would be proper to say that Christ Himself was foreknown (chosen), and not His attributes.

Certainly God has known who Christ would be and what His attributes would be, but it is only because He has chosen Christ to be these things.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

Double post. :tear:

 

[BaptistBob]

It can't mean know beforehand in this passage. Again, in the context, Christ was foreknown, not things about Him or things concerning Him. As the μεν...δε construction and conversation shows it would be proper to say that Christ Himself was foreknown (chosen), and not His attributes.

Certainly God has known who Christ would be and what His attributes would be, but it is only because He has chosen Christ to be these things.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Basically, as I understand it, your argument is that Christ can't be known by God to be someone beforehand. Therefore, he was chosen to be something, but was not known in advance to be that very thing for which he was chosen. Would you then say that God did not know what he chose him for, because if he did know what he chose him for he would then to the impossible thing: to know him as that in advance?

I'm simply saying that God knew him as the savior in advance. You are saying that that he chose him in advance. I agree that he chose him in advance, or knowing in advance would be impossible. Therefore, he knew him as the savior in advance.

To put it more simply, unless you are saying that God chose Christ for nothing, then claiming that God could not know him as that is kind of hard to believe.

I say that he was known to be Christ, the lamb. He was known in advance and made manifest in the last times.

 

[The Archangel]

Basically, as I understand it, your argument is that Christ can't be known by God to be someone beforehand. Therefore, he was chosen to be something, but was not known in advance to be that very thing for which he was chosen. Would you then say that God did not know what he chose him for, because if he did know what he chose him for he would then to the impossible thing: to know him as that in advance?

No. That is not my argument. Certainly God can know things before hand. But that is not the extent of His knowledge. As Grudem explains in his 1 Peter commentary (Tyndale series) this understanding--mere foreknowledge--is absolutely insufficient.

He was chosen to be something--the lamb--and it was, therefore, known in advance what He would be--the lamb. God did choose Christ to be the Lamb.

I'm simply saying that God knew him as the savior in advance. You are saying that that he chose him in advance. I agree that he chose him in advance, or knowing in advance would be impossible. Therefore, he knew him as the savior in advance.

I understand what you are saying. So, you would agree, then, that foreknew means to choose?

To put it more simply, unless you are saying that God chose Christ for nothing, then claiming that God could not know him as that is kind of hard to believe.

I say that he was known to be Christ, the lamb. He was known in advance and made manifest in the last times.

I say that Christ was chosen to be the lamb. God's sovereign choosing of Him--before the foundation of the world--means that God knew Him to be such--again from before the foundation of the world--and He was made manifest in the last times.

I guess the question is this: Did God first know what Christ would be and then choose Him to be such? Or, did God first choose Christ to be the lamb and then know that He would indefatigably be such because of God's sovereign choice? That, I think, is the question.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

No. That is not my argument. Certainly God can know things before hand. But that is not the extent of His knowledge. As Grudem explains in his 1 Peter commentary (Tyndale series) this understanding--mere foreknowledge--is absolutely insufficient.

I never said it was always the type of knowledge that "looked into the future." Otherwise the Jews in Acts 26:5 knew Paul by looking into the future. In that context it means that they knew him prior to that time. The context informs our understanding.

God wanted Christ to do what he did. He selected him for that role and knew him as such (a logical inference).

He was chosen to be something--the lamb--and it was, therefore, known in advance what He would be--the lamb. God did choose Christ to be the Lamb.

Well, I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that he was known in advance. That was the interpetation that you said was not possible. That is my literal interpetation.

I understand what you are saying. So, you would agree, then, that foreknew means to choose?

Not in this context.

I say that Christ was chosen to be the lamb. God's sovereign choosing of Him--before the foundation of the world--means that God knew Him to be such--again from before the foundation of the world--and He was made manifest in the last times.

Yes, I understand your position.

I guess the question is this: Did God first know what Christ would be and then choose Him to be such? Or, did God first choose Christ to be the lamb and then know that He would indefatigably be such because of God's sovereign choice? That, I think, is the question.

See above, and my last post.