Replies

Jews say of the passover ”why is THIS night different from all others...this is what the LORD has done for ME”, not for my ancestors on some night long ago in history. The Lamb Who IS Slain From Before the Foundation of the World offers Himself in sacrifice both within and outside of time, is able and does so will to permit us to share in that and this one true perpetual sacrifice. Who can tell Him ”you can’t do that”?

>>The Lamb Who IS Slain From Before the Foundation of the World offers Himself in sacrifice both within and outside of time<<

If you believe the "outside of time" meme then you can not believe in free will either. Scripture says those who are written in the book of life were there before the creation of the world.

Jews say of the passover ”why is THIS night different from all others...this is what the LORD has done for ME”, not for my ancestors on some night long ago in history. The Lamb Who IS Slain From Before the Foundation of the World offers Himself in sacrifice both within and outside of time, is able and does so will to permit us to share in that and this one true perpetual sacrifice. Who can tell Him ”you can’t do that”?

Indeed, God can do as He wishes. That by itself does not tell us what He in fact did. For that we need the word of God. And the word of God knows no such thing as this perpetual suffering of the Lamb. First, consider the quote you have used:

Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

That is the only occurrence of the exact phrase in the entire Scripture, so this must be the one to which you refer. Yet the verb is not a present tense "IS"," as you have emphasized. Rather, the verb is "slain" (ἐσφαγμένου), in the perfect, which is one of a number of ways to express the past tense:

τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου.

Which translates as:

the lamb the [one] having been slain from [the] foundation of [the] world

The perfect tense in Greek typically points to a completed event in the past. If the divinely inspired writer had wanted to convey some timeless nexus theory of the atonement, this would have been a great opportunity to simply use "esti(n)," "he is," as you attempted to suggest. But your suggestion has no basis in the text, because under the direction of the Holy Spirit, our author chose the perfect tense, and as if to remove all doubt of its priority, describes it as an event completed "before the foundation of the world."

But how then do we reconcile this event completed before the world was made with the fact that Jesus died at a later point in human history? This can be easily understood as a typical feature of Hebraic thought, where events that were certain to occur because they were in God's plan are spoken of as having been completed even before they occurred in time. A classic example of that is Jude 14:

Jude 1:14-15 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (15) To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

When he says, "the Lord cometh," the Greek form is "ἦλθεν, past tense, "he came" (using the aorist in this case), even though it points to the future event of the second coming. The translators here used the present tense, really just to avoid confusing the typical English reader. But the fact remains that in Hebrew thought, the "prophetic perfect," as it is sometimes called, is a perfectly legitimate way to refer to events with two different time references, one the actual historical point in time, the other as an established event of the past, to indicate the certainty of the event in the divine plan.

But if any doubt remains, the writer of Hebrews here demolishes that residue of doubt:

Hebrews 10:9-13 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. (10) By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (11) And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. (12) But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, (13) from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

Again, the sanctification of the believer, their setting apart for the divine purpose, is spoken of here as an accomplished, past tense event. The word translated "once for all" is the adverb "ἐφάπαξ" "ephapax." It is also used here, and also in connection with Christ's death. Note the emphasis on the past tense nature of the event:

Romans 6:9-10 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. (10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once : but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Note the holy author is not saying He is dying once. He says "died once." It is a concluded event. So too in Hebrews, which the author there confirms in the following verses. If we were sanctified, past tense, by the offering of Christ's body on our behalf, the sanctification could not be complete unless the offering was complete, and that is the whole thrust of our author, that the sacrifices under Moses could not accomplish a complete expiation of sin, but the death of Jesus does, and has, past tense, accomplished that for us.

Also observe the deliberate contrast. His death for us is past tense, a concluded event. But what is His present state? He lives! These choices of tense are not trivial, or accidental, but divinely inspired. This is how God actively wants us to think about these things. If we think of Christ's death as a completed historical event, it is because God Himself has encouraged us to think of it that way.

Note again verse 12 from Hebrews 10. The contrast is not the episodic suffering of the sacrificed animals with the perpetual suffering of Christ. It is the effectiveness of the sacrifice. The animals sacrificed did not and could not take away sin. But Jesus, in one offering, expiated our sin forever, precluding the possibility or necessity of any future offerings. So the value of the offering, not the experience of it, is what goes on forever. There can be no further offering, not even of Christ, because after the event of His once for all offering, Jesus attains a new status, such that He lives, and is now is sitting at the right hand of God, waiting for the historical demise of all His enemies. The offering is past, the waiting is now, the coming is future.

Now, I realize this will not satisfy those determined to certify to themselves that transubstantiation is real, even though it cannot be supported from Scripture. I would only offer to those so determined that it is generally unwise to invent whole systems of theoretical support, such as the time differential theory of eucharistic participation in the sacrifice of Christ, when the Scriptural account provides it's own, much simpler, more direct, and more meaningful account. If you have faith in Christ, your sins are hid in Him, by virtue of His death for you. When you partake of the Lord's table, you do it for the purpose He stated, and not one invented out of someone's pious imagination. That purpose, the only imperative Christ ever gave concerning the observance of the Lord's Supper, is to remember Him. If that does not seem like enough for you, then I would contend you have too low a view of what it means to remember Him. Nothing in my experience of the Christian faith could be richer or more full of His blessed presence than to recall in my innermost being the amazing love He showed to worthless sinner me on that dark day two millenia ago, when He gave His life, to give me life.

Peace,

SR