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

[Spinningplates2]

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]

Dropping it.

 

[MW]

ummm...not really seeing how you think that Christ was bearing our sins when He first came into this world.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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 ?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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:



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.

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!

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]

[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!

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.

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]

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,”

This interpretation is preferable since it is logically and theologically impossible to make sense of the statement that the Lamb “was slaughtered before the foundation of the world.”

David E. Aune, vol. 52B, Word Biblical Commentary : Revelation 6-16, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 747.

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]

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]

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.



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.

Thanks Will,

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

Blessings!