 |  |
B.--The phrase occurs again in John 17: 24, "Thou lovedst Me before the foundation
of the world". This must be read with verse 5, "O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine
own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was".
A.--I believe that our critic holds that this love and glory were only possessed in purpose
and not in person.
B.--This, as you know, I most decidedly repudiate, yet on his own ground "before the
world was" cannot be "after the world has been running some 4,000 years", and therefore
this takes us back to Gen. 1: But there are seven passages which use the expression
"From or since the foundation of the world". Let us have them all before us:--
"I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world"
(Matt. 13: 35).
"Come . . . . . inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world"
(Matt. 25: 34).
"The blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world"
(Luke 11: 50).
"Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Heb. 4: 3).
"For then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world"
(Heb. 9: 26).
"Whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world" (Rev. 13: 8).
"Whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world"
(Rev. 17: 8).
I believe your critical friend would agree that a period called "from or since the
foundation of the world" must be later than a period called "before the foundation of the
world".
A.--If he cannot accede to that, I should say that argument was wasted on him.
B.--If therefore we prove that "from the foundation of the world" goes back to
Gen. 1:-4:, then "before" that period cannot by any form of reasoning be a time yet
future. We need not examine the whole seven, one or two will be sufficient. The passage
quoted from Luke 11: 50 is practically dated for us.
A.--How dated? I don not see any date.
B.--No? yet verse 51 says, "from the blood of Abel", which dates this period near
enough to Gen. 4: for our argument, does it not?
A.--Yes, it does.
B.--And with it dates Eph. 1: 4 as earlier still?
A.--Yes, I cannot avoid that argument either.
B.--Heb. 4: 3 is dated likewise?