`Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father'

(1 Pet. 1:2).

`Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world' (1

Pet. 1:20).

`Ye, therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before'

(2 Pet. 3:17).

It will be observed that the usage subdivides this list into three

groups.  (1) God.  It is used of God in connection with Christ and His

sacrifice for sin.  (2) God.  It is used of God in connection with His people

who are called the elect, or the chosen.  (3) Man.  It is used of man in the

sense of knowing beforehand, or of having previous information.  The grouping

of these occurrences may be made more evident if set out as follows:

A

Reference to Christ and His sacrifice (Acts 2:23).

B

Reference to man and his previous knowledge of facts

(Acts 26:4,5).

C

Reference to the elect people of God

(Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2).

A

Reference to Christ and His sacrifice (1 Pet. 1:20).

B

Reference to man and his foreknowledge as a result of

Scriptural testimony (2 Pet. 3:17).

Commentators are divided in their treatment of the meaning of the

`foreknowledge' of God.  The Calvinist sees in the word a synonym for

predestination.  Others an indication of love and favour.  Apart from

theological necessity, the word means to know beforehand, without

responsibility, as to the event.  Dr. Liddon says of the earlier suggestions,

`the New Testament use of the word does not sanction this (not even Rom.

11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20), or any other meaning than to know beforehand'.  To us,

creatures of time and space, such knowledge borders upon the impossible.

Indeed, some, like Jonathan Edwards, have boldly said, `it is impossible for

a thing to be certainly known, to any intellect, without evidence', and have

come to the conclusion that the foreknowledge of God compels Him, the Most

High, to decree, foreordain, and unalterably fix every act and word that He

has foreknown.  It is extraordinary that any should thus presume to say what

is or is not possible to the Lord; nor can such avoid the logical conclusion

of their argument, that God must be, if they are right, the author of sin, a

conclusion diametrically opposed by the Word of God, and odious to the

conscience of His children.

Time is the measure of motion, and in our limited state, the idea of a

timeless state expressed by the title I AM, is beyond our comprehension.  A

very crude illustration, however, may be of service in arriving at some

understanding of the matter.  Suppose the reader to be standing at a small

table upon which there rest books, paper, ink, and pens.  As he stands, he

comprehends the whole table and contents as one; there is neither a first nor

a last.  The articles could as well be enumerated from the left hand as from

the right.  Now, further, suppose that an ant has crawled up one of the table

legs, and that he visits each article in turn.  To the ant there will be a

definite sequence because the element of time is introduced and, resultingly,

there will be a first and a last and moreover there will be a limit to its

vision.  So also, if a spider crawl up the opposite leg, its enumeration and