# When did God impute the sins of the elect to Christ?



## Reformingstudent (Nov 17, 2008)

Came across this question a while ago and was not sure how I would answer it and would like to know if any here would like to take a shot at it. Also, could you give a reason for the answer you chose. Thank you.

When did God impute the sins of the elect to Christ ?

#1.before the world began ?

#2. At the cross

#3, At the time of believing the gospel ?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 17, 2008)

I believe it was in thought before the world began, realized at the cross, and brought to our attention at the point of believing the Gospel.


----------



## Reformingstudent (Nov 18, 2008)

Good answer. Thanks.
Your check is in the mail.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 18, 2008)

Just got lucky is all.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 18, 2008)

At the cross. Isaiah 53 tells us this. Also Christ Himself stated on the cross that it was finished. What is "it"? The only way to answer that question is to ask why He went there in the first place...to pay for our sins. The only way to receive God's wrath for our sins was 2Cor 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."


----------



## eqdj (Nov 18, 2008)

While the elect were chosen and the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, and while our sins were imputed to Him at the cross - His righteousness is not imputed to us until regeneration - Else could it be true that we were alienated from God and His enemy (Col. 1:21)

An error of hyper-calvinism is that since the elect are elect before the world began they receive Christ's imputed righteousness before the world began.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 18, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I believe it was in thought before the world began, realized at the cross, and brought to our attention at the point of believing the Gospel.



This is a good answer. I think it is supportable by 2Cor.5:19, "that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, *not counting their trespasses against them*, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation."

The original question had to do simply with sin's imputation, to Christ. So, I don't think that the timing of our justification has to be addressed in the same breath.

God was not counting the sin of his people against them (eternal, instantaneous death) because of Christ--even as far back as Adam and Eve. That eternal suspension fall on Christ at the cross. The specific ruling that removes my guilt (liability to punishment) on the basis of that sacrifice occurs when I believe.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 18, 2008)

But the question was "*When* did God *impute* the sins of the elect to Christ ?" The question *wasn't* when did God think of imputing sins onto Christ or when did the elect benefit from this imputation. So the answer would still have to be at the cross.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 18, 2008)

sjonee said:


> But the question was "*When* did God *impute* the sins of the elect to Christ ?" The question *wasn't* when did God think of imputing sins onto Christ or when did the elect benefit from this imputation. So the answer would still have to be at the cross.




SArah, Isaiah uses past tense in the prophecy for example:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed. 

He saw it as already completed. He doesn't say "He will be pierced/crushed/punished"


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2008)

Technically, taking into account the specific terms of the original question, Hebrews 10:5 teaches that Christ became a sin offering from the moment He assumed human nature.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 18, 2008)

I like it, Matthew!


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 18, 2008)

> Technically, taking into account the specific terms of the original question, Hebrews 10:5 teaches that Christ became a sin offering from the moment He assumed human nature.



Thanks. I'm reminded of all the systematic books I've read, which discuss Christ's sufferings through his whole life as a part of his satisfaction, or as a part of his oblation to the Father.

I still think it is a hard question, though. "When" were our sins imputed to Jesus.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 19, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > But the question was "*When* did God *impute* the sins of the elect to Christ ?" The question *wasn't* when did God think of imputing sins onto Christ or when did the elect benefit from this imputation. So the answer would still have to be at the cross.
> ...



Right, at the cross.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 19, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Technically, taking into account the specific terms of the original question, Hebrews 10:5 teaches that Christ became a sin offering from the moment He assumed human nature.




ummm...not really seeing how you think that Christ was bearing our sins when He first came into this world. A body that God prepared for Christ needed to be prepared in order for Him to become like His brethren and live a perfect life which would be imputed onto us and then at the cross be that single sacrifice for our sins. Even in the OT the goat had to have someone's hand placed on it to impute onto it the sins of Israel before it was sent out of camp. We know this represents what happened to Christ. The goat didn't have Israel's sins on it until that imputation (obviously being a type and shadow of Christ).

Hebrews 10:5 just states that, "5Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

"Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"

8When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when *Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins*, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 19, 2008)

This is not to say there was more than one sacrifice; it is simply that theologians have not limited Christ's sufferings and satisfaction to the cross.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 19, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> > Technically, taking into account the specific terms of the original question, Hebrews 10:5 teaches that Christ became a sin offering from the moment He assumed human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Christ had two main "obligations" when He came to earth. One of those obligations was His sufferings (40 day fasting and temptation by Satan for example) in order to fulfill righteous acts on our behalf which would be imputed to His elect. This is separate from His second obligation of having our sins imputed onto Him, taking His Father's wrath and curse upon Himself at the cross (cursed is the one who is hung on a tree). We KNOW that our sins were not imputed onto Christ before the cross because Christ never cried out to His Father, "Father, why have You forsaken Me?" until He was on the cross bearing our sins.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 19, 2008)

sjonee said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> > sjonee said:
> ...



If I may, I believe you are oversimplifying it. Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. He played his life out in time as well but it was already a done deal in God's eyes.

Isaiah was saying it was already done 700+ years before it happened.


----------



## sotzo (Nov 19, 2008)

It is debates on questions like this that make people want to leave for Rome or the East since they leave room for mystery. Putting the _ordo salutis_ into water-tight compartments in terms of time and space of their occurence is like asking for a mathematical equation to define the process of thinking. Yes, there is an order to salvation, but how is assurance or sanctification encouraged by being able to say "at 11:50 AM on Thursday, immediately after Christ cried out to the Father on the cross, my sins were forgiven". This error, in my opinion, is the Reformed equivalent of Finneyism, the latter which would encourage saying "at 11:50 AM on Sunday, immediately after I walked the aisle during the invitation, Jesus came into my heart."


----------



## MW (Nov 19, 2008)

sjonee said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Technically, taking into account the specific terms of the original question, Hebrews 10:5 teaches that Christ became a sin offering from the moment He assumed human nature.
> ...



His circumcision (made under the law) and baptism (fulfilling all righteousness) demonstrate the fact that He was surety for His people all His life long.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 20, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > staythecourse said:
> ...



Can you produce Scripture which says that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world? Obviously, it was planned before the foundation of the world but I don't know of any Scripture which says He was actually slain before the foundation of the world. It would seem impossible for God the Son to be slain. God the Son wasn't even slain on earth when His fully man body was slain. God the Son has never died only His body died or was slain. One portion of Isaiah 53 says that Christ was despised and rejected by men...past tense here. However, we know that men didn't exist before the foundations of the world, but according to your thinking they would have to since the past tense to which Isaiah refers has to do with "before the foundations of the world". You cannot say that one sentence which is in past tense form is referring to "before the foundations of the world" and yet another sentence with past tense form is not referring to "before the foundations of the world". You have to be consistent. Isaiah 53 is Isaiah prophesying what would happen in the future in a past tense form only to indicate that it was a sure thing which would come about at the cross.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 20, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Agreed, but that doesn't mean He bore our sins while walking the earth for 33yrs. Your statement here only confirms that He lived a righteous and perfect life and those righteous and perfect works are imputed to us. This doesn't answer the question of "when" our sins were imputed onto Christ.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 20, 2008)

Revelation 13:8 in the Greek has Christ slain from the foundation of the world.



> 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.



That is the word-order of the Greek text as well.

The imputation of sin was decreed before the foundation of the world and what God decrees is already an established fact regardless of time. Time is a secondary factor for God. So "when were the sins imputed?" Before time began in the permanent decree. When God "started the clock" of all creation the realization of the decree occurred at the cross. Both are right answers.

_Out of time_, the elects' sins were imputed to Christ from eternity past. _In time_ it was at the cross.

Personally, I realized what God had decreed 27 years ago, to give an example of my _experience_ of the imputation


----------



## sotzo (Nov 20, 2008)

sjonee said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > sjonee said:
> ...



I think what Rev Winzer is alluding to is Christ's active obedience on our behalf.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 20, 2008)

sjonee said:


> Can you produce Scripture which says that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world? Obviously, it was planned before the foundation of the world but I don't know of any Scripture which says He was actually slain before the foundation of the world.



I think the verse he has in mind is:
Rev 13:8 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*. 

I don't think anyone is saying that Christ WAS actually dead, or "considered dead" (crassly), or what-have-you, before time began.

Nor do I think anyone is trying to diminish the physical act of sacrifice, or laying down life-for-life (or -lives) when they point out that the Incarnation was an act that prepared the Son of God for death. That little baby in a manger was there for one reason only--to DIE.

The Passover lamb was _chosen_ on the 10th of the month. Then it was killed on the 14th, at twilight. Why was it set apart 4 days earlier? Because preparation was part of the event. Perhaps we accept that Jesus didn't receive the "weight" of our guilt prior to his actual crucifixion, although there certainly seems to be a "process" to the pouring out of the wrath of God that includes Gethsemane and his trials.

Why don't we just acknowledge that this is all a pretty overwhelming scenario that defies neat categorizations?


----------



## nicnap (Nov 20, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't we just acknowledge that this is all a pretty overwhelming scenario that defies neat categorizations?
> ...


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 20, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> Revelation 13:8 in the Greek has Christ slain from the foundation of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Maybe I need to know which version of the Bible you are using. The ESV states, "And all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." So this verse is speaking about those people who were not chosen before the foundation of the world. It isn't referring to Christ being slain before the foundation of the world.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 20, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > Can you produce Scripture which says that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world? Obviously, it was planned before the foundation of the world but I don't know of any Scripture which says He was actually slain before the foundation of the world.
> ...



Because Scripture is clear of *when* our sins were imputed onto Christ. I think it is bad theology to say that our sins were imputed onto Him anytime before that. I agree that He prepared His whole life to take on our sins at the cross, but this isn't the same thing as actually taking on our sins and that was the question. *When* did He take on our sins. The question wasn't was He preparing throughout His life to take on our sins, but *when* did He actually *accomplish* this. It is very true that the little baby in the manger was born for a reason and that was to die for our sins but it wasn't the only reason. Had He only needed to come down to die for our sins He could have come in bodily form straight from heaven to the cross to die for our sins. However, that would have only put us in the same place that Adam and Eve were in before the fall...in an innocent condition. Had He not lived a perfect, righteous life on our behalf we would not have any perfect, righteous works imputed onto us. The verse about Christ being slain before the foundation of the world is an incorrect interpretation which leads to all this confusion of when our sins were imputed onto Christ and thus gives us bad theology. I actually have never met anyone who was unsure about the timing of the imputation of our sins onto Christ. There are people who do not believe or even understand imputation of sins, but those who do believe and know about this doctrine believe it was at the cross. I don't continue this conversation just for the sake of speaking. I believe it is a very important doctrine to get right. And I do think it should be hashed out.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 20, 2008)

Also, I just looked up the Greek rendering of Rev 13:8 and it states, "written [speaking of people's names] in the slain Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation of the world" so even in the Greek rendering of this verse it isn't speaking of the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world, but instead it refers to those people whose names were not written in His book of Life from the foundation of the world. There is no other Scripture which backs up the thought that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world, but there is other Scripture which backs up the doctrine that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world, thus showing us that the non-elect were not written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 20, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't we just acknowledge that this is all a pretty overwhelming scenario that defies neat categorizations?
> ...



I think this is rude. Certainly not a fruit of the Holy Spirit. I do work and I work hard. I do read not only the Bible but other godly men's work. But perhaps you're right. Perhaps I spend too much time here. Maybe it's time you take away my membership here.


----------



## nicnap (Nov 20, 2008)

sjonee said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Contra_Mundum said:
> ...




With all due respect...it doesn't appear to be aimed at you. A little sense of humor does a lot of good.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Nov 20, 2008)

When Christ said, "Why have you forsaken me!" God could not look upon (or share fellowship) with Christ. I think this was the actual event where our debt was paid.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 20, 2008)

Dropping it.


----------



## MW (Nov 20, 2008)

sjonee said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > sjonee said:
> ...



Luke states that His name was called "Jesus," that is, He publicly came under the law, with all its obligations and penalties, and that in the official capacity of serving as the Saviour of sinners. John Calvin comments: "God appointed that his Son should be circumcised, in order to subject him to the law; for circumcision was a solemn rite, by which the Jews were initiated into the observance of the law. Paul explains the design, when he says, that Christ was 'made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,' (Gal. iv. 4, 5.) By undergoing circumcision, Christ acknowledged himself to be the slave of the law, that he might procure our freedom. And in this way not only was the bondage of the law abolished by him, but the shadow of the ceremony was applied to his own body, that it might shortly afterwards come to an end. For though the abrogation of it depends on the death and resurrection of Christ, yet it was a sort of prelude to it, that the Son of God submitted to be circumcised."


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Nov 21, 2008)

There is surety, and there is payment. I thought that the idea posed in the first question was "when did God impute the sins of the Elect to Christ?"

How can the answer not be on the Cross? Saints in the Old Testament looked forward to the sacrifice and we look back. Look back to a Perfect Lamb that would be killed to cover the sins of the Elect. The Wrath of God was poured out on the Cross.

When Christ said, "Is there any other way? None the less, not my will but the Father's be done." Was this not saying, "It has to be done!" It was not enough for Christ to be perfect.

sjonee, if you are still listening, I think most people think it was imputed at the Cross. The most crucial point in history.


----------



## Iconoclast (Nov 22, 2008)

Reformingstudent said:


> Came across this question a while ago and was not sure how I would answer it and would like to know if any here would like to take a shot at it. Also, could you give a reason for the answer you chose. Thank you.
> 
> When did God impute the sins of the elect to Christ ?
> 
> ...



Here is a small portion of Jonathan Edwards History of redemption, part 1


> I. As soon as man fell, Christ entered on his mediatorial work. Then it was that he began to execute the work and office of a mediator. He had undertaken it before the world was made. He stood engaged with the Father to appear as man’s mediator, and to take on that office when there should be occasion, from all eternity. But now the time was come. Christ the eternal Son of God clothed himself with the mediatorial character, and therein presented himself before the Father. He immediately stepped in between a holy, infinite, offended Majesty, and offending mankind. He was accepted in his interposition; and so wrath was prevented from going forth in the full execution of that amazing curse that man had brought on himself.
> 
> It is manifest that Christ began to exercise the office of mediator between God and man as soon as ever man fell, because mercy began to he exercised towards man immediately 537 There was mercy in the forbearance of God, that he did not destroy him, as he did the angels when they fell. But there is no mercy exercised toward fallen man but through a mediator. If God had not in mercy restrained Satan, he would immediately have seized on his prey. Christ began to do the part of an intercessor for man as soon as he fell; for there is no mercy exercised towards man but what is obtained through Christ’s intercession. From that day Christ took on him the care of the church, in the exercise of all his offices. He undertook to teach mankind in the exercise of his prophetical office; to intercede for fallen man in his priestly office; and to govern the church and the world as a king. He from that time took upon him the care of defending his elect church from all their enemies. When Satan, the grand enemy, had conquered and overthrown man, the business of resisting and conquering him was committed to Christ. He thenceforward undertook to manage that subtle powerful adversary. He was then appointed the Captain of the Lord’s hosts, the Captain of their salvation. Henceforward this lower world, with all its concerns, devolved upon the Son of God: for when man had sinned, Cod the Father would have no more to do immediately with this world of mankind, that had apostatized from and rebelled against him. He would henceforward act only through a mediator, either in teaching men, or in governing, or bestowing any benefits on them.


----------



## Hilasmos (Nov 23, 2008)

sjonee said:


> Also, I just looked up the Greek rendering of Rev 13:8 and it states, "written [speaking of people's names] in the slain Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation of the world" so even in the Greek rendering of this verse it isn't speaking of the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world, but instead it refers to those people whose names were not written in His book of Life from the foundation of the world. There is no other Scripture which backs up the thought that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world, but there is other Scripture which backs up the doctrine that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world, thus showing us that the non-elect were not written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world.



_Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament_, 27th Ed:



> Revelation 13:8: ... ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου.



Translates as, in order:



> "...in the book of the life of the lamb of the one having been slaughtered from the foundation of the world"



Were you reading from an ESV interlinear? They changed the order of the Greek words when put into English. The argument for doing so is not because of the Greek but because of its possible unity with Rev. 17:8.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 23, 2008)

Hilasmos said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I just looked up the Greek rendering of Rev 13:8 and it states, "written [speaking of people's names] in the slain Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation of the world" so even in the Greek rendering of this verse it isn't speaking of the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world, but instead it refers to those people whose names were not written in His book of Life from the foundation of the world. There is no other Scripture which backs up the thought that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world, but there is other Scripture which backs up the doctrine that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world, thus showing us that the non-elect were not written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world.
> ...



Yes, but, as I'm sure you know, the ordering of the phrases does not dictate the order in which the phrases modify one another. In the Greek, the clauses are often placed in order according to emphasis rather than according to the order of modification, I'm pretty sure. The rendering of the passage based on the Interlinear Greek/English NT, according to how the phrases are to modify one another, should read, "and shall do homage to it all who dwell on the earth of whom have been written not the names from the founding of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain." As I am no Greek expert, I'm sure others could correct me if I am wrong.

Blessings!


----------



## Hilasmos (Nov 23, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> > sjonee said:
> ...



Word order is not definitive, but the burden of proof rests with the one who wants to deviate from it. One could make piece meal of the NT if word order wasn't followed as one of the first considerations when multiple grammatical options present themselves.

In this case, most commentators who prefer "from the begining of the world" to modify _written,_ rather than _slain_, do so based on "logic" and disagreeing with the theology of such an idea (it doesn't make sense to them, therefore they follow the other option). If it was any other concept it would be rediculous to go all the way back to "has been written" with the prepositional phrase.

They do have the comparison with Revelation 17:8 to back them up, though. While those who hold to it modifying _slain_ have the normalcy of grammar and 1 Pet 1:19-20 on their side.

I personally think the theology of it is understandable, and as it has been stated, it doesn't mean he was physically killed prior to the cross. Rather, in the mind and purpose of God he was already slain. The Father viewed Him as slain from the foundation of the world, and this served as the propitiatory element of God's wrath whereby he could elect many to salvation _in Christ_.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 23, 2008)

Hilasmos said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > [Yes, but, as I'm sure you know, the ordering of the phrases does not dictate the order in which the phrases modify one another. In the Greek, the clauses are often placed in order according to emphasis rather than according to the order of modification, I'm pretty sure. The rendering of the passage based on the Interlinear Greek/English NT, according to how the phrases are to modify one another, should read, "and shall do homage to it all who dwell on the earth of whom have been written not the names from the founding of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain." As I am no Greek expert, I'm sure others could correct me if I am wrong.
> ...



The Greek language does not depend upon the order of the words and phrases as much as it depends upon the endings given to the words and verbs in the expressions. And so, the burden of proof is truly not upon the one who varies from a literal translation word for word in english. The burden is rather upon the one who understands which phrase modifies which object, which is often done according to the tenses and endings upon certain words. I very much agree with your view of the theology with regard to the thoughts that you gather from this text. In the mind and purpose of God, Christ was truly already slain from the foundation of the world. But, this passage is not necessarily proof of this theology. Other passages very well serve the purpose to prove this very point. But, with regard to this passage and many others, scripture may be designed to present something different. Remember that, in the Greek, scripture sometimes begins with clauses that are modified by a statement nearly 3 verses away. And, it takes someone schooled in Greek (unlike me) to know when this is the case. Reading a literal greek translation in english merely causes us to read greek through the eyes of the english grammar, which is very much absurd when it comes to understanding an appropriate translantion. Case endings must be understood in such a way as to grasp which phrases modify which words. Our tendency will be to read Greek through the filter of english eyes, and thereby assume that the words before the verbs are the subject, and that the words after the verbs are the direct objects, and, that certain words modify certain phrases which are next to it within the statement, when in fact they are meant to modify statements several clauses before or after. We must be careful to never impart an english mindset to a greek grammar. As I am no scholar in this area, I am very much with you and others in this struggle.

Blessings!


----------



## Hilasmos (Nov 24, 2008)

> The Greek language does not depend upon the order of the words and phrases as much as it depends upon the endings given to the words and verbs in the expressions. And so, the burden of proof is truly not upon the one who varies from a literal translation word for word in English. The burden is rather upon the one who understands which phrase modifies which object, which is often done according to the tenses and endings upon certain words.





> Case endings must be understood in such a way as to grasp which phrases modify which words.




I agree, but the problem here is that grammatically it could modify either _written_ or _slain_ (and, like i said, one has to justify taking taking a prepositional phrase to modify a verb that occurred 13 words prior, when it is also directly connected to another participle that it is grammatically capable of modifying). You seem to assume it can't modify slain on grammatical grounds, and there are no such grounds.

Heres a few scholarly views, for and against either translation. 



> At first glance, it seems more natural, given the existing word order of the text, to connect the phrase ἀπὸ τῆς καταβολῆς κόσμου, “since the creation of the world,” with ἐσφαγμένου, “slain,” and to translate the passage so: “whose name has not been written in the book of life of the Lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world” (av; niv; reb; Caird, 168; Mounce, 256; Sweet, 212; Harrington, 139)...
> 
> It is also grammatically possible to link the prepositional phrase ἀπὸ τῆς καταβολῆς κόσμου to γέγραπται, “written,”
> 
> ...



As you can see, it is a "theological" issue, not a grammatical one. 



> From the foundation of the world. These words may be construed with slain or with written. In favor of the latter is ch. 17:8; of the former, 1 Pet. 1:19, 20. Alford, pertinently as I think, urges the position of the words in favor of the connection with slain, *and says that had it not been for the apparent difficulty of the sense thus conveyed, no one would have thought of going so far back as to hath been written for a connection*.
> 
> Marvin Richardson Vincent, _Word Studies in the New Testament _, 2:528.





> It is doubtful here whether it is to be taken with του ἐσφαγμενου [tou esphagmenou] (cf. I Pet. 1:20) or with γεγραπται [gegraptai] as in Rev. 17:8. *Either makes sense, and here the most natural use is with ἐσφαγμενου *[esphagmenou]. At any rate the death of Christ lies in the purpose of God, as in John 3:16.
> 
> A.T. Robertson, _Word Pictures in the New Testament_



My conclusion, even those who go against it modifying "slain" do so on theological grounds, recognizing that it would otherwise be the more natural way of translating it. Thus, if one doesn't have a theological problem with it, the weight favors the view that it modifys "slain." I don't think we can lock that in as the definitive conclusion, but it can't be rejected on grammatical grounds, and that was my point from the begining.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 24, 2008)

Will,
That was a helpful summary of some of the authorities' opinions, and of the hermeneutical issues. Theology cannot be separated from the hermeneutical task.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 25, 2008)

Hilasmos said:


> > The Greek language does not depend upon the order of the words and phrases as much as it depends upon the endings given to the words and verbs in the expressions. And so, the burden of proof is truly not upon the one who varies from a literal translation word for word in English. The burden is rather upon the one who understands which phrase modifies which object, which is often done according to the tenses and endings upon certain words.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Will,

I see more clearly what you were emphasizing with your original post. Keep the good thoughts coming. 

Blessings!


----------

