© Copyright 2010-2015
© Copyright 2010-2014.

Christ Died For Sin In 33 AD; NOT Before the World!
This is the true gospel!
By Brother Mike (57 minutes, 5-8-13) 



Hello, this is Brother Mike at May-212011.com. I am coming to you today because there are those who would unknowingly distort the gospel. We learn the bare-bones of the gospel in 1Cor. 15:1-4 where we read, 

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures . . . 

From this scripture, we learn that a simple statement of the gospel is this: Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. A careful examination of the context of this passage reveals that this must be talking about when Christ came to this earth and died for sins, was buried, and rose again the third day because we read right after Christ accomplished these things that Christ appeared to many of the brethren:  

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve :
6
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles

What I am getting at is this: the fact that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures cannot possibly be pointing to the belief that He died for sins before the foundation of the world since He certainly could not have appeared to many of the brethren back before the world was created because no human beings had then yet been created. Rather, this must be referring to the time when Christ died for sins, was buried, and then rose while He was on this earth in 33 AD. This is the gospel: that Christ died for sins in 33 AD, that he was buried in 33 AD, and that He rose in 33 AD. 

But even though it is clear that the gospel has everything to do with Christ having died for sins, having been buried, and having risen from the dead when He was on this earth in 33 AD, there are those who would say that the gospel took place before the foundation of the world. According to them, Christ died for sins, was buried, and rose from the dead all before the foundation of the world. To them, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ when He was on earth was nothing but a demonstration of what Christ had already accomplished before the world began. So, according to them, Christ did not pay for sins in 33 AD, but He paid for sins before the foundation of the world. 

Now this is a serious matter. God says that the gospel is the death for sin, burial and resurrection of Christ when He was on this earth in 33 AD (1Cor. 15:3-4), but there are others who would say that the gospel is the death for sin, burial, and resurrection of Christ before the foundation of the world. So there are two different notions as to what the gospel is. Who is correct? 

In this study I will first show how the idea that Christ died for sins before the foundation of the world cannot stand in the light of all scripture. I will then look at the verses which they say support their case, and show that there is a better way of interpreting those verses which takes into account all the verses that go contrary to their teaching. 

Let's begin by looking at Hebrews 9:26-28: 

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself .
27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation

Notice first of all that verse 26 says, but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. So when did He put away sin? Was it before the foundation of the world? Absolutely not! For it states, but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Now in the end of the world cannot possibly mean before the foundation of the world, so we can know without any question that Christ did not put away sin - which is just another way of saying that He did not die for sin - before the foundation of the world. Rather, He died for sins once in the end of the world, which we know refers to Christ having died for sins in 33 AD. Furthermore, the verse does not say, but now once in the end of the world has he appeared to demonstrate how He had put away sin from the foundation of the world, but it says, but now once in the end of the world has He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. In other words, Christ did not appear - come to this earth - to merely demonstrate how He had put away sin from before the world, but He actually appeared - came to this earth - to actually put away; that is, to die for sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Yes, this verse most definitely teaches that Christ died for sins when He came to this earth and died on the cross in 33 AD. Anything else is simply a distortion of the truth.

Now it states in verse 28, 

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The word So (Hout0s in the Greek) that begins this verse means thus or therefore, and summarizes what had previously been said. And what was previously said is what we had learned in verse 26, namely that once in the end of the world [33 AD] has He [Christ] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. So verse 26 when it says, So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, is simply summarizing what was already said. And if we then ask the question, when was Christ once offered to bear the sins of many, it would have to be in 33 AD because that is what was learned in the previous verse 26 of which is being summarized by verse 28. Remember what we had learned: it was once in the end of the world; that is, in 33 AD when Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. There is no possibility that this could have taken place before the foundation of the world because it was as the scripture stated, in the end of the world when it took place. 

Now the second half of verse 28 also supports Christ having died for sin in 33 AD. It says, and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Now that he will appear the second time without sin infers that when He came the first time, he appeared with sin, and this would have to mean that he appeared the first time in order to bear the sins of many. And when did Christ appear the first time to bear the sins of many? It was only when He came to this earth and died for sin in 33 AD, for this is the first time that Christ actually appeared to humankind. 

So what we find in Hebrews 9:26-28 is some of the clearest declarations in scripture that Christ died for sins on Calvary in 33 AD, and since we read in Romans 6:10, For in that he died, he died unto sin once , He could not have also died for sin before the foundation of the world. Yes, Christ could have only died for sin at one time, and according to Hebrews 9:26-28, this one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ for sin was when He came to this earth and died in 33 AD.

There are other verses which teach the same thing. Let's take a look, for instance, at Matthew 20:28 (Mark 10:45). It states, 

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

This passage gives us insight as to why the Son of man (Jesus Christ) came to this earth as the Messiah. It says He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Now this passage does not say in any way that He came to demonstrate how his life had been a ransom from the foundation of the world, or that He came to earth to give His life a demonstration for many, but it says that He came to this earth to give his life a ransom. Now a ransom is a payment, and the only payment that this could be in reference to is the payment for sin, and if Christ came to be a payment for sin, then He must have come to earth to die for sin. So there you have it: Christ came to this earth to die for sin. So when was sin paid for? It had to have been paid for in 33 AD when He made payment or died for sin on the cross. And, since He died unto sin once (Ro.6:10), He could not have also died for sin before the foundation of the world. 

It is of interest to note that the word for life in this verse is the same word for soul. So this verse could actually be translated, Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his [soul] a ransom for many. This emphasizes all the more that Christ did not come to earth to just demonstrate how He had suffered, but He came to this earth to ransom or pay for sin by the death of His very own soul on Calvary. This had to have taken place in 33 AD and not before the world began! 

Let's now look at 1John 3:5. There we read,

"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin .

Here we have what is called a purpose clause. Why was He [Christ] manifested? As the scripture says, To take away our sins. Now to be manifested means to be made to appear, or to be made known, or to be revealed. This is what happened to Christ when He came to this earth: He was made to appear; He was revealed. So why was Christ made to appear, or another way of putting it, why did Christ come to this earth as the God-man? Why He came to take away our sins as the scripture says. This can mean nothing else than that He came to earth to die for our sins. So when must have Christ died for sins? It must have been when He came to this earth - was manifested - and died for our sins in 33 AD. And notice that this scripture does not say in any way, hidden or otherwise, that Christ was manifested to demonstrate how He had taken away our sins from the foundation of the world, but it says, He was manifested to take away our sins. Once again, this can only mean that Christ was made to appear in coming to this earth in order to die for our sins on the cross in 33 AD.

Now let's look at 1John 4:10. It states, 

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins .

First of all, the verse lets us know that God sent his Son. This has to do with God sending His Son to this earth. Then we are told that God sent His Son [to be] a propitiation for our sins. The words [to be] are not in the original text, so this verse might be translated that God sent His Son a propitiation for our sins. But with biblical Greek constructions such as this, it is common knowledge in Greek that the form of the verb [to be] is to just be added even though it does not appear in the original text. Therefore, it is a good and proper translation to include [to be] in the translation, and so we will keep the verse just as it is in the King James Version, namely that God sent His Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins

Now what does the word propitiation in this verse mean? It is used only twice in the Bible. It is used in 1John 4:10 as we have just seen and also in the 1John 2:2 where we read, 

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 

In each case, it speaks of Christ as being the propitiation for our sins. The word propitiation means an appeasing, and in this context it carries with it the idea that Christ was an appeasing for our sins. But exactly how was Christ an appeasing for our sins? Well, the obvious answer to this is that Christ was an appeasing for our sins only by His atoning sacrifice for our sins. So we could say that the word propitiation could be substituted by the words atoning sacrifice because the word propitiation points to the atoning sacrifice which Christ accomplished by dying for our sins. This means that wherever we see the word propitiation, it can be substituted by the words atoning sacrifice in order to help us better understand what the word propitiation means.

So with what we have learned so far, let's now go back to 1John 4:10 and translate it in a way that makes it easier to understand for our discussion at hand. It can now read,

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to this earth] to be the propitiation [atoning sacrifice] for our sins .

So, now, why, according to this verse, did God send His Son to this earth? Why, obviously, to be an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Nothing in this verse, either directly or otherwise, can even hint at inferring that God sent His Son to be but a demonstration of the propitiation or atoning sacrifice that was wrought before the foundation of the world. Rather, this verse, by clearly saying that Christ came to this earth to be a propitiation, or an atoning sacrifice for our sins, makes it clear that Christ must have come to die for our sins when He came to this earth, which time we know was in 33 AD and not from before the foundation of the world. Once again, we see that the scriptures do not support the idea that Christ died for sin from the foundation of the world. 

The next verse that I want to look at is Romans 3:24-25. It states,

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ." 

First of all, let's recognize that the Whom God has set forth refers to Christ Jesus who was mentioned just previous. In other words, God has set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation. The Greek word for set forth, protithemi, is a compound word which consists of the prefix pro, which means before, and the root word tithemi, which means to put, set, or place. So putting the prefix and roots together, it means to put before, set before, or place before. The entire sentence, then, should read, God has put before, set before, or placed before Jesus Christ to be a propitiation. But the question now is, who has Jesus Christ been put before, set before, or placed before? The obvious answer is that He has been put, set, or placed before humankind when He came to this earth to be a propitiation for our sins. What this all means is that for Christ to be set forth means that He was set forth into this world. 

Now we read the He was set forth [into this world] to be a propitiation through faith in His blood. The word propitiation in this verse is not the same word for propitiation that we found in 1John 4:10. It is the Greek word hilasterion, and although it is translated as propitiation here in Romans 3:25, it is translated as mercy seat in Hebrews 9:5, which states,

"And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat of which we cannot now speak particularly ." 

It was on the mercy seat that the high priest would sprinkle blood once a year which pointed to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So in a real sense, propitiation is very closely associated with the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In fact, even as we had defined propitiation as atoning sacrifice in 1John 4:10, even so may we do so here. The verse would now read,

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [into this world] to be a propitiation [atoning sacrifice] through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God .

The point I want to focus in on is this: Christ Jesus was set forth [into this world] to be a propitiation [atoning sacrifice]. And, to be an atoning sacrifice when He came to this earth, He must have shed His blood for sin when He came to this earth, and when He died on the cross in 33 AD. Nothing in this verse, either direct or otherwise, says or infers that Christ was set forth into this world to be but a demonstration of the propitiation that He was before the foundation of the world. Rather, this verse, by clearly saying that Christ came to this earth to be a propitiation, or an atoning sacrifice for our sins, makes it clear that Christ must have come to die for our sins when He came to this earth, which time we know was in 33 AD and not from before the foundation of the world. Once again, we see that the scriptures do not support the idea that Christ died for sin from the foundation of the world, but it all points to Him having paid for sin on this earth in 33 AD. 

But there is something else quite interesting in these verses. We already learned in the first part of the verse that Christ was set forth into this world in order to be a propitiation or atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, but next we read that all this was to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past. The word (for) in the phrase [for] the remission of sins that are past is most commonly translated as (by), so we can understand that the atoning sacrifice of Christ on earth declared His righteousness [by] the remission of sins that are past. This tells us that all sins in the past; that is, all sins committed before Christ died on this earth in 33 AD, were paid for when Christ died on the cross of Calvary in 33 AD. Sins could not have, therefore, been paid for from the foundation of the world. Rather, sins were paid for through Christ having come to this earth to be a propitiation or atoning sacrifice at the cross of Calvary in 33 AD.

Now let's look at Galatians 4:4-5. There we read, 

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman , made under the law,
5
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons

In this verse, we read that when the fullness of the time was come; that is, when it was time for Christ to come into this world through the woman Mary, God sent Him forth into this world. Why? So that He could redeem the ones under the law. Now to redeem is to give a payment on behalf of the ones who are being redeemed. This can only refer to the payment for sin that Christ accomplished on behalf of His people when He died on Calvary in 33 AD. These verses in no way, direct or otherwise, say or infer that in the fullness of time Christ was sent to this earth in order to merely demonstrate how He had redeemed His people from before the foundation of the world. Rather, it is clear by these verses that Christ was sent to this earth to die for the sins of His people. And, since Christ died for sin only once (Ro. 6:10), He couldn't have also died for sin from before the foundation of the world. I ask you, how could the scripture possibly say that Christ came to this earth to redeem His people; that is, that He came to this earth to die for the sins of His people, if He really did not? Do you see how absurd this is? 

Well, there is another verse that I am thinking of. It is Matthew 1:21. There it reads, 

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. "

Now it doesn't say that she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall merely demonstrate how He saved His people from before the foundation of the world, but it says, He shall save his people from their sins. This means that Christ was brought forth into this world to actually save His people from their sins by dying for their sins at the cross in 33 AD. Once again, the scriptures clearly reveal that sins were paid for at Calvary in 33 AD. 

Okay, there are many other verses that I could list to show that Jesus paid for our sins in 33 AD and not before the foundation the world, but I hope by now that you have gotten the message: Christ did not die for sins before the foundation of the world, but He died for sin on the cross in 33 AD. This is the conclusion that one must come to in the light of all the previous evidence. So, then, what must we now do with the one single verse in Revelation 13:8 which says,

"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.

Are we to look at this one, single, alone verse which seems to say that Christ was slain at or before the foundation of the world and make it supersede or override all the many other verses that clearly say that Christ died for sin on the cross in 33 AD? Of course not; how foolish that would be! Rather the wise thing to do is realize that in the light of all the evidence, this one, single, alone verse must mean something different than what seems to be the case. One thing we know for sure is that it does not mean that Christ died for sin at or before the foundation of the world. This is impossible in light of all the evidence! 

So what does it mean? One thing I notice right from the start is that the verse says, the Lamb slain [from] the foundation of the world; It does not say the Lamb slain [at or before] the foundation of the world. So right away I wonder why. If God wanted to make it absolutely clear that He meant Christ was slain at or before the foundation of the world, He would have used a word that means exactly that. But He didn't. Why is that? It has got to be because He doesn't want us to think that the Lamb slain [from] the foundation of the world means the Lamb slain [at or before] the foundation of the world.

Okay, so what does it mean by saying, the Lamb slain [from] the foundation of the world? As already noted, it cannot mean that Christ was actually slain at or before the beginning of the world based on all the scriptures which teach contrary. But, if the Lamb slain [from] the foundation of the world is a way of saying that Christ was foreordained to be slain from the foundation of the world, then it makes perfect sense. As an illustration, it's like making the statement that all of God's elect were saved from the foundation of the world. This can't possibly mean that they were all actually saved at or before the foundation of the world since in reality they were all saved at different, later times in history, but it can mean that they were all saved from the foundation of the world in the sense that they were all then foreordained unto salvation, and so it was certain and guaranteed that they would all eventually become saved from the foundation of the world. The idea is that what God has foreordained in advance is so certain to take place that it can be declared to be as if it already has taken place before it actually does; hence, all God's elect being declared to be saved from the foundation of the world before they actually were, and Christ being declared to be slain from the foundation of the world before He actually was.  

This notion that what God has foreordained in advance being spoken of, or declared to be, as if it has already taken place upon its having been foreordained is not unheard of in scripture. For instance, we read in Romans 4, 

Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee [Abraham] a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were

In this verse God is speaking about Abraham whom He had made a father of many nations before he actually was. In fact, at the time in which God said to Abraham that He had made him a father of many nations (Gen. 17:5), Abraham was 99 years old and his wife Sarah was 90 years old, and she had not even yet bore a child. Furthermore, she and he were then beyond child bearing age. So how could God say that He had made Abraham a father of many nations when he had bore no children through his wife Sarah? Well, as the story goes, God worked a miracle and brought about a son, Isaac, through Sarah and Abraham in their old age, and it was through Isaac that Abraham eventually became a father of many nations. But the point I want to get back to is this: God made Abraham a father of many nations before he actually was because it was foreordained by God, and, therefore, was so certain to eventually take place that Abraham could be called a father of many nations before he actually was. As Romans 4:17 says, 

". . . God, who . . . calleth those things which be not as though they were . "  

Now this is the same reason why God speaks of Christ as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is not said because Christ actually died before the foundation of the world, but this is said because it was so foreordained by God from the foundation of the world that Christ would eventually die that it could be spoken of as if it had already taken place. Yes, 

"... God, who ... calleth those things which be not as though they were.

So there you have it. Just because scripture speaks of Christ as the lamb slain [from] the foundation of the world does not mean that He actually died for sins at or before the foundation of the world, but it means that He was foreordained to die for our sins from the foundation of the world, and it was, therefore, so certain to take place that it could be spoken of as if it had already taken place from the foundation of the world. As I stated once before, if God wanted to make it clear that the Lamb slain [from] the foundation of the world meant that Christ actually died at or before the foundation of the world, he would not have used the word [from], but He would have used the word [before] or [at]. But as it is, we have learned that God used the word [from] the foundation of the world in order to tip us off to what He meant, namely that Christ was foreordained to die on the cross in 33 AD at or before the foundation of the world. 


The Romans 1:4 Argument
 

Now that we have learned that the phrase, the Lamb slain form the foundation of the world does not mean that Christ died at or before the foundation of the world, there is another scripture which is commonly used in an attempt to prove that Christ died at or before the foundation of the world. Because the argument is based upon Romans 1:4, I call it the Romans 1:4 Argument. In this argument it has been concluded that Christ must have died before the foundation of the world based upon two premises. The two premises are these: First, the second person of the Godhead was only declared to be, or begotten as, the Son by the resurrection from the dead as it supposedly states in Romans 1 where we read in verse 1, 

Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead . . . 

So the 2nd person of the Godhead, in a sense, did not actually become the Son until He rose from the dead. But, second, scripture also says that the world was created by the Son. We read this, for instance, in Hebrews 1:2 where we read, 

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds .

What these two premises mean, they say, is that the Son was not actually begotten to be the Son until He was so declared to so be by the resurrection from the dead. So the Son in a sense came into existence as being begotten only after rising from the dead. Now here's the logical conclusion based upon the two premises: Since the Son is said to have created the world, but He was not actually begotten as the Son until He was resurrected from the dead, the resurrection of Him from the dead must have taken place before the world began; otherwise, how could it be said that the Son created the world, for if He did not rise from the dead before the creation of the world, he would not have yet been begotten as the Son, and if there is no Son, then how was the world said to have been created by the Son?

Well, there is actually a problem with this argument: one of its premises is faulty. Remember what the two premises were? One, the Son created the world, and, two, the second person of the Godhead became declared as the Son by being resurrected from the dead. Well, it is this number two premise which is faulty. Remember, it is based upon Romans 1:4 which states,

Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead . 

Please take careful note! It does not say that He was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead, but it says that He was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead. This makes all the difference. The focal point of the verse is not on that he became the Son of God, but on that He became the Son of God with power. So He could have been the Son of God before the resurrection, but He became the Son of God with power by the resurrection. What I am trying to say is that Romans 1:4 does not mean that He first became called the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead, which is what their argument is based upon, but rather it means that He first became the Son of God with Power by the resurrection. This leaves room for the Son to have actually existed as the Son independent of or before the resurrection. This being the case, the resurrection, and so Christ's death for sins, did not have to take place before the foundation of the world in order for it to be said that the Son created the world. No, the Son was not declared to be the Son through the resurrection from the dead. In fact, we are told that He was declared to be the Son of God with power . . . by the resurrection from the dead. What this means is that at the resurrection of Calvary in 33 AD, Christ did not become the Son, for He was already the Son, but He became the Son of God with power because it was then when He had rose from the dead and received all power in heaven and on earth as is stated after Christ rose from the dead such as in Matthew 28:18, 

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them [after the resurrection] , saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth .


The Hebrews 4:3 Argument  

Now I want to look at another argument which is used in support of Christ having died for sin at or before the foundation of the world. It is taken from Hebrews 4:3, which reads, 

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world

Doesn't this mean that all the work required for salvation - that is, Christ's death for sins - was completed or finished from (or before) the foundation of the world? If we isolate this verse from all the verses which clearly teach that Christ once died for sins in 33 AD, we might think so. But we know this can't be the case based on all the other scriptures, so we must see this as meaning something else. So what can this verse mean? 

First of all, could all the works required for our salvation have been actually finished from (or before) the foundation of the world? Absolutely not! For even if we believe that Christ paid for sins before the world, there is more to fulfilling the works of salvation than just this. Here's what I mean: the works of salvation not only have to do with Christ dying for sins, but they also have to do with the Holy Spirit taking that death and applying it to each of God's elect in time. This whole process could not possibly have been completed before the foundation of the world since God's elect weren't even yet born at that time. So when Hebrews 4:3 says that the works [for salvation] were finished from the foundation of the world, it can't possibly mean that all the works for salvation where finished.

So what does it mean then that the works [for salvation] were finished from the foundation of the world? It means this: the complete works for the salvation of God's elect were so conceived of and ordained by God before the world began - and, thus, guaranteed to take place - that they could be considered as finished, even though they had not yet completely worked themselves out in time.
Remember what God says in Romans 4:17,

". . . God, who . . . calleth those things which be not as though they were ."

So, in this sense, the works were finished from the foundation of the world. It is not saying that Christ died for sins before the foundation of the world, and this is why the works for salvation could be spoken of as being finished or completed, but it is saying that the works for salvation were so conceived of and ordained by God from the foundation of the world that they could be spoken of as having already taken place - finished - from before the foundation of the world even though they had not yet actually worked out in time. 


Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin
 

Now one of the supposed greatest arguments that those who believe that Christ died for sins before the foundation of the world think that they have is this: Christ had to have died for sin at or before the foundation of the world, they say, because there had to first be the shedding of Christ's blood before any of God's Old Testament elect could have been saved, for without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin (Heb. 9:22). So, if Christ did not shed is blood for sin at or before the foundation of the world, they say, then no one could have ever been saved until Christ actually shed His blood for sin. 

The problem in this argument is it fails to understand that God is not subject to time as we are, for He is outside of time, and this means that He is not subject to the laws of time. What I mean is that God can at one point enter into time to shed His blood for sin as He did on the cross in 33 AD, and because he is God and so not subject to the limitations and laws of time, He can take that blood and apply it to anyone at any time, past, present or future. This is, without question, mind boggling, but it is true. 

So if you think that Christ's shed blood in 33 AD cannot possibly be used to save someone thousands of years earlier, it is because you are thinking only within your own limitations of time. What you have done is put God in your box, and you are saying to the God of whom nothing is impossible that you are here trapped in my box. What you need to do is open your box, and realize that God is not subject to time, for He is outside of time, and this means He can shed His blood in time is not limited to a given time because God who shed His blood is not limited to or subject to the laws of time. 

Ro 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out


Conclusion
 

Now, in conclusion, I want to return to the biblical definition of the gospel. Remember, we read of this in 1Corinthians 15:1-4. There we read, 

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures . . . 

According to this passage, we learn that the true gospel is that Christ died for our sins, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day. We also learned that this was all completely accomplished on this earth, on the cross, in 33 AD according to the scriptures.

But as I stated at the beginning, there are those who ignorantly and unknowingly want to change the gospel and say that it took place before the foundation of the world, and so make the earthly cross null and void. 

Who is correct? Well, based upon this study, we know that those who say that the gospel took place on this earth in 33 AD are correct. Yes, without question, we can say with full boldness that Christ died for our sins on this earth in 33 AD; that Christ was buried on this earth in 33 AD; and that Christ rose again the third day on this earth in 33 AD, all according to the scriptures. Yes, the true gospel is that which took place on this earth in 33 AD, and not before the foundation of the world.

Now remember what 1Corinthians 15 said, 

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain

So let's keep in memory that Christ died for our sins on the earth in 33 AD; that He was buried on this earth in 33 AD; and that He rose again the third day on this earth in 33 AD " unless ye have believed in vain. "  

Now may the " LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace."

aaaaaaaaaaaaiii