(29) "Оτɩ оvs πρоéyvw. The course of thought seems to be thus: 'All things must work together for good to Christians—to such as are called to the privileges of a filial relation, and were chosen before the world began, to be conformed to the image of God, and to be advanced to a state of glory. The everlasting love and purpose of God cannot be disappointed.' "Ort, K. 7. λ. introduces the reasons, why it is certain that all things will work together for the good of true Christians.

Пpoéyvw, foreknew, or before decreed or constituted or determined, (viz. as kλŋroí, elect, saints, chosen, see on ver. 28), a word endlessly disputed. But whether theology or philology has been the predominating element in the dispute, it is not difficult for an impartial reader to decide. My object and argument shall be philological. I would seek for what the apostle does say; not for what I may conjecture he ought to say.

Пpó, in composition, gives the additional signification of previous time, formerly; the action designated by the verb remaining the same as is signified by the simple form of the word. What then does γινώσκω mean? It means, (1) To know in any manner generally; to know by the aid of any of the bodily senses, by hearing, &c., or by experience, trial; Lat. cognoscere, sentire. (2) To be acquainted with, to perceive so as fully to apprehend, to take knowledge of, to make one's self acquainted with. (3) To recognize one as a known friend, a familiar acquaintance; Matt. vii. 23. Mark vii. 24. 1 Cor. viii. 3. Gal. iv. 9. 2 Tim. ii. 19. Heb. xiii. 23. To the same purpose is the corresponding Hebrew employed; i. e. it means to love, to regard with affection, to treat with favour; e. g. it is said of God in respect to the saints, Ps. i. 6. cxliv. 3. Amos iii. 2. Nahum i. 7; of men in respect to God, Hos. viii. 2. Ps. xxxvi. 11. ix. 11. Job xviii. 21. The first and second classes of meaning above given are so common, and so easily confirmed by any of the lexicons, that I have deemed it superfluous to adduce examples, which every one may find in abundance by consulting his lexicon.

Пpoéyvw then may mean, he before loved, he before regarded with affection, he before looked on with favour. In this sense many have here understood the word; e. g. Origen, Erasmus, Mosheim, Baumgarten, E. Schmidius, and generally the Arminians.

On the other hand; Theophylact, Ecumenius, Ambrose, Augustine, Bucer, Balduin, Hunnius, Calovius, Heumann, and others, have construed πρoćуv here as meaning, he foreknew, understood in the literal and primary sense of the word; i. e., say the Lutheran commentators in general: 'God foreknew that the Kλŋroi would freely believe.' In

....

the same way, many at the present day construe this text. But the question on which all turns, as to this interpretation, is: Does the apostle here represent the calling and justification and glorification of the kλŋroi, as the result of God's love to them, or of their love to him? That is, did God bring them by his Spirit into a state of grace, because they loved him first, or before they were brought into this state; or did he by his mercy bring them into this state, so that they might love him? This question is finally and fully settled by such texts as 1 John iv. 10, 19. John xv. 16. Rom. v. 6—10. Jer. xxxi. 3. 2 Tim. i. 9, où κarà τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν—ἀλλὰ κατὰ πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν .. πρὸ χρόνων αιωνίων. It is settled by the nature of the case. The Spirit of God "breathes on the valley of dry bones;" he "quickens those who are dead in trespasses and sins;" he " calls the dead to life;" he "creates anew in Christ Jesus;" sinners are "born of the Spirit;" and it is in this way, and in this only, that they come to love God; for "the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law, nor indeed can be;" and that "which is born of the flesh is flesh." It is God who first loves us (1 John iv. 10, 19), before we come to love him. There is no setting aside declarations so plain, so full, so often repeated as these.

We cannot embrace that view of πроéуvw, then, which makes the manifestation of God's love to his children to depend on his foresight of their meritorious obedience, or their love towards him. It is undoubtedly true, it must be so, that God foresees and perfectly knows all the love and obedience which his children will ever exhibit; and it is equally certain, that he has before determined to reward these in proportion to their desert. But this cannot be the ground of his causing them, when they are his enemies and dead in trespasses and sins, to become συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. It must for ever remain true, that we are brought "to love him, because he first loved us."

It should also be observed, in regard to the exegesis now in question, that it gives a ground or reason of God's foreknowledge in this case, which the text does not give. The text does not say why or how God foreknew; but merely that he did so. Of this more in the sequel.

In the sense of No. 3 above, viz. that of approving, loving, regarding with approbation or affection, Origen, Martyr, Calvin, and many others. take poéуvw here. But those who embrace this sentiment respecting Tрoέyvw, are divided; some saying that God before loved his saints, because he foresaw their character and good works; others, that out of his mere good pleasure he set his love upon them. In the latter way,

Calvin, Beza, the Westminster Catechism, and most of the Calvinistic writings take it. But our text, it should be observed, assigns neither the one reason nor the other; it states the simple fact, and no more.

I do not see that any conclusive objections can be urged against adopting the sense of before loving or regarding with affection; because the like sense of the verbs yvwokw and is common. It is only when the reason for doing this is forced upon us, as being disclosed in the text itself, that I should object to such an exegesis.

With Tholuck, however, I prefer a sense of πpoéуvw, different from any yet mentioned; and this merely from the philology of the passage. It is well known in respect to yvwow, that it sometimes means volo, constituo mecum, I will, I wish, I determine with myself, I resolve or determine or decide; and of course, I ordain, constitute, decree. So Rom. vii. 15. So Josephus: o Oeòs yvw тiμwρioaodai avroús, God hath determined to punish them, Antiq. I. 2; comp. also Antiq. II. 4, 5 and III. 12, 3. So Psalt. Sal. 17, 47: mv Ėyvu ô còs avaarirat, which God hath determined to establish. In like manner Plutarch: öyvw φυγεῖν ἀποδημίᾳ τὴν ὑπόνοιαν, he determined to avoid suspicion by going abroad, Lyc. c. 3. Polybius: ἔγνωσαν διὰ μάχης κρίνειν τὰ πράγματα, they have determined to decide matters by appeal to arms, V. 82.

That рoyiνwok may have the like sense, is clear from 1 Pet. i. 20; where προεγνωσμένου πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (said of Christ) means plainly, before decreed, before constituted or determined. In the like sense (as many think) is it used in Rom. xi. 2, God hath not cast away his people ov πρоéyvw, whom he chose to be his or constituted his, viz. before the foundation of the world; comp. 1 Pet. i. 20. Eph. iii. 11. 2 Tim. i. 9. And in accordance with this, πрóуνwaç is used; e. g. Acts ii. 24, where it is the equivalent of poμévn Bovλý. So also in 1 Pet. i. 2; and it is the same as πрółɛσ, in 2 Tim. i. 9. Eph. iii. 11. In this view of the subject, öv роéуvш is to be regarded as a resumption of the idea expressed by κarà πpółɛσɩ kλŋroïç in ver. 28, i. e. those who by his purpose were κλητοί, those whom προέγνω - i. e. whom he had before chosen or constituted his κλητοί-προώρισε, κ. τ. λ. That πρό in composition here means, before the foundation of the world, may be seen by comparing 1 Pet. i. 20. 2 Tim. i. 9. Eph. iii. 11.

The objections to this view of the subject do not seem to be weighty; and they lie equally against translating poέyvw, he foreknew, or he loved before. If God did actually foreknow who were to be his kλŋToί, then it was not uncertain whether they would be or not. If he LOVED them before the foundation of the world, then it must have been, that he did foreknow that they would be his kλŋτoί•

and this again makes the same certainty. If he determined before the foundation of the world that they should be his kλŋroi, then again the same certainty existed, and no more. Nay even if we could abstract God and his purposes from the whole, and suppose the order of the universe to move on in its constituted way, the same certainty would still have existed. I do not see, therefore, in what way we can avoid the conclusion, that certainty must exist by the divine purpose and counsel, in regard to the KAŋroi-a certainty not merely that they will be saved, provided they believe and obey and persevere in so doing; but a certainty that the karà рÓÐεσ KλŋToί will be brought to believe and obey and persevere, and will therefore obtain salvation; for such is the manifest tenor of the whole passage.

Still, all those of any party in theology, who draw from poέyrw the conclusion that God fore-ordained or chose or loved, out of his mere good pleasure, on the one hand; or from his foresight of faith and good works on the other; deduce from the text what is not in it, for it says neither the one nor the other. It avers merely, that the Kara półεσw KλŋToί were foreknown, or fore-loved, or fore-determined. Construe this in whatever way you will, if there be any objection against the one, there is the same against the other, unless you remove it by adding a condition which the apostle has not added. It lies on the face of the whole paragraph, that certainty of future glory to all the kλŋroì Oɛoũ, is what the writer means to affirm; and to affirm it by shewing that it is part of the everlasting purposes of God.

Kai рowρioε, he also fore-ordained, predestinated, decreed before, viz. before the foundation of the world. So, clearly, the word is used in Acts iv. 28. 1 Cor. ii. 7, expressly рò τwν aiúrov. Eph. i. 5, 11. Bretschneider (Lex.) says, that the decree here has respect merely to the external privileges of the gospel, and not to eternal salvation; which is directly contradicted by 1 Cor. ii. 7-ɛiç dókar nμwr by Eph. i. 5 — εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ .... ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν . . . . and ver. 11, ἐν ᾧ ἐκληρώθημεν, προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν, κ.τ.λ. In like manner, the whole tenor of the passage before us clearly contradicts this; for here the subject is, final and future glory, not merely present opportunities and external advantages for acquiring Christian knowledge. The only remaining passage where the word is used (Acts iv. 28), employs it in an entirely different connexion, but with the plain sense of before decreed. The sense of the whole is: Those who are Anroć according to the purpose of God,

those whom he determined from everlasting to save, he did at the same time predestinate to be conformed to the image,' &c.

Συμμόρφους is here used as a noun, having the Gen. after it; if employed as an adjective, it would require the Dative; ovμμóppovs.... avrov, to be of the like form with the image of his own Son, i. e. to be like him, to resemble him in a moral respect. God has not then (as is often objected to the doctrine of predestination) decreed that men should be saved whether they be sinful or holy, i. e. without any regard to the character which they may have; but he has determined, that all who are conducted to glory must resemble, in a moral respect, him who leads them to glory, i. e. the great Captain of their salvation.

Eiç Tò elva.... adeλpois, that he [the Son] should be the first-born among many brethren; i. e. that the Saviour should, in his office as Lord of all and Head over all things for his church, still sustain a fraternal relation to those whose leader he is, they being made to resemble him by being made partakers of the like qualities or affections; comp. Heb. ii. 11-18. On πрWτÓтокоs, comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, (28). Exod. iv. 22. Heb. i. 6. Col. i. 15.

(30) Ove̱ dè πрowpiσe, and whom he fore-ordained, or predestinated, viz. to be conformed to the image of his Son. In other words, whom he before determined to regenerate and sanctify, to purify from sin, and to make holy in some measure as the Saviour is holy.

ToÚTOVÇ Kai Ékáλɛσɛ, the same did he also call. Is this the so named effectual calling; or does it mean nothing more than the external invitation of the gospel, the moral suasion of it addressed to the heart and understanding of sinners? That the external call is often designated by the word kaλew, is clear enough from such passages as Matt. ix. 13. Mark ii. 17. Luke v. 32. Gal. i. 6. v. 8, 13. Eph. iv. 1, 4, &c. But the word kaλew may also be applied to effectual calling, i. e. such a calling as ensures acceptance. In such a way Kλño and Kληrós are, beyond all doubt, usually applied to effectual calling or election. So here, ékáλɛσɛ manifestly means, such a calling as proceeds from the póleos, from the fore-knowledge and from the predetermination of God in respect to the objects of it, and which is followed by justification or pardon of sin, and final glory. If this be not effectual calling, what is? Such a call as proceeds from the everlasting purpose and love of God, and ends in heavenly glory, is something more than an external motive or suasory argument, merely addressed to the mind.

Toúrovç kai ¿dikaiwoɛv, the same he also justified; i. e. pardoned,