Replies

Iscool? Your error here is a grammatical one. Please diagram this sentence:

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [the beast], whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

The noun Book has two modifying phrases attached to it: "of Life" and "of the Lamb."

The phrase "of the Lamb," and what follows, modifies the noun "Book." The phrase "slain from the foundation of the world" modifies the word Lamb.

That means we are talking about a Book "of Life" belonging to "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

"The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" is Christ. There is no other lamb slain. He is the only one. All who worship the beast, do not have their names in that Book.

John says of Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!" (John1:29)

And Paul says of Jesus, "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast..." (1 Cor 5:7)

Jesus IS "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." He's the one who has that "Book of Life."

You might think I'm joking, but it really helps if you diagram the sentence.

Christ's sacrifice is both a one-time, temporal event, and an eternal event outside of time. The same thing. The same, one sacrifice.

That's what the Bible says.

The contested passage:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
(Revelation 13:8)

The reference to the time of the foundation of the world in Revelation 13:8 can, according to leading Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson, associate with either the Lamb, or those whose names are not listed in the book of life belonging to "the Lamb, the having been slain [one]," as the Greek puts it. This is because in Greek, physical proximity in a sentence is not an absolute guide to association of clauses. However, to be fair, Robertson does think the association with the Lamb to be the more natural of the two.

However, under that possibility, he styles the association as analogous to this passage, which offers a clarification on what it means to be "slain before the foundation of the world:"

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
(1 Peter 1:18-20)

The thing to look at here is the distinction between the fore-ordination of the coming of the Lamb versus the Lamb's actual manifestation in time. In Hebraic thought, an event could be referred to as past, even if it was still future, simply based on the certainly of God's foreordained plans coming to pass. This is sometimes called the "prophetic perfect," and this passage from Jude demonstrates it well:

And prophesy also to these did the seventh from Adam--Enoch--saying, `Lo, the Lord did come in His saintly myriads,
to do judgment against all, and to convict all their impious ones, concerning all their works of impiety that they did impiously, and concerning all the stiff things that speak against Him did impious sinners.'
(Jude 1:14-15)

If you don't recognize the translation, it is Young's Literal Translation (YLT), which labors to preserve the tensing (and other aspects) of the Greek with far greater precision than most English translations, as an aid to careful study. Notice here the Second Coming is spoken of in the past tense, as if it had already happened, when we know in fact it has not happened yet. Nor do we have any reason to suppose it occurs timelessly, as though by some means we could be made to participate in it before or after its actual occurrence.

Similarly, the expression about the Lamb having been slain from the world's foundation, even if we assume that to be the correct form, is a common literary device, not to be confused with making statements to the effect that eternity is like the timeless Nirvana of pantheism. Indeed, making God reside in timelessness produces some serious issues with Him acting in time as a divine Person, which is why this opinion is more popular among theological liberals who have in fact developed a more pantheistic, less personal view of God.

Therefore, at best, this theory of what could be called "trans-temporal participation" in the sacrifice of Christ is wild speculation with no grounding in Scripture whatsoever. At worst, it is an attempt to rescue a seriously flawed theory of the Eucharist that does not square with the historical finality of Christ's sacrifice for our sins. For my part, I am happy limiting myself to the expression of Scripture on the matter, including as just one of many wonderful examples:

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
(Romans 5:8-10)

BTW, great to have you back at the front lines, Mrs Don-o [even if you are presently wearing the wrong uniform ;) ]

Peace,

SR