The Time Clause of Revelation 13:8

  There is a schism amongst the translations. It is not a schism large enough to tear a rift within the evangelical world, but it is nevertheless present and begging to be discussed. The schism has to deal with a time clause found within Revelation 13:8. In some translations, the latter part of the verse reads, “everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain” (ESV).[1] In other translations, the latter part of the verse reads, “all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world” (NIV).[2] The difference is small but nevertheless present. In the former list of translations it is believed that the time clause (ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου) relates to names (in this instance, not) having been written (γέγραπται). In the latter list of translations it is believed that the time clause relates to the Lamb who was slain (ἐσφαγμένου). The question presented to us is which translation is right?

A discussion of this question is what follows. This paper will present the text being discussed, Revelation 13:8, as most likely intending to communicate the idea of the time clause relating to ἐσφαγμένου. This will be accomplished in four steps. First, we will present the baseline argumentation of the opposing side. Second, we will examine common trends in sentence structures and how such information is relative to the discussion. Third, we will discuss the validity of the claim that Revelation 13:8 ought to be understood in light of Revelation 17:8. Fourth, we will examine and address the theological concerns surrounding the text.

The Problem

Before advancing, it is important for us to understand the argumentation of the opposing opinion. We will be focusing our attention on the argumentation of David Aune. Before advancing further, it must be acknowledged that Aune is not the only individual who holds to this particular conclusion.[3] As demonstrated earlier, several translating committees have arrived at the same conclusion as Aune. However, for simplicity, we will only reference Aune when discussing the argument. Aune’s conclusion and reasons for his conclusion, for the most part, align with what other scholars of the same opinion hold.[4]

Aune’s conclusion is that the time clause in Revelation 13:8 does not relate to ἐσφαγμένου but rather to γέγραπται. Aune presents two premises of argumentation. His first premise is that to accept the time clause as relating to ἐσφαγμένου would spell theological disaster. Aune states that it is theologically illogical to affirm such because “while it is possible to think of Christ as destined to die for the sins of the world, it is quite another thing to say that he was slain before the creation of the world.”[5] With this theological presupposition established for the text, Aune looks elsewhere in Scripture to find the appropriate way to understand the proper reading of the text. His second premise is demonstrated as he turns his attention to Revelation 17:8 where there is a nearly identical phrase. Aune draws the conclusion that what John meant to communicate in Revelation 13:8 must be identical to what he meant in Revelation 17:8.

Sentence Structure

The latter part of the text being discussed reads, “οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου.” From the outset, one may feel drawn to conclude that the time clause relates to ἐσφαγμένου simply because of its proximity. To assert, as Aune does, that the time clause relates to γέγραπται would mean that we would have to overlook a twelve-word gap. Those of the opposing opinion do not conclude that the word gap is a significant factor in the discussion.[6] However, we will examine how general Greek sentence structure and Johannine sentence structure demonstrates otherwise.

Greek Structure

One of the arguments that scholars of Aune’s position will raise is that the sentence structure in Revelation 13:8 ought not be a significant factor to the determination of the proper reading of the text.[7] Although we may agree that sentence structure alone should not be the sole determining factor, that should not prevent us from nevertheless considering it as a significant determining factor. Later in the paper we will consider other determining factors that play alongside the sentence structure to support this conclusion. However, for the time being, we will discuss the importance of sentence structure as a determining factor and why Aune is wrong to not more strongly consider it also.

It is well known that Greek is a highly inflected language. Because of such, there are instances in Greek where it seems that chaos rules. Although that may be true in some instances, such is largely not the case. We must recognize that Greek, despite its highly inflected nature, does not possess a total freedom to its sentence structure.[8] There are noticeable patterns that Greek follows, and the acknowledgment of those patterns is important for our discussion at hand.

There are three patterns of importance that we want to recognize. The first is the nature of noun phrases. In Greek, it has been observed that the common norm for noun phrases is that they are closely followed by whatever modifiers there may be.[9] The second is the nature of relative clauses. In New Testament Greek, it has been observed that “the relative clause follows its referent in high percentage (approx. 90% and above).”[10] The third is the nature of emphasis. In New Testament Greek, it has been observed that the way in which words are structured around each other serve the function of emphasizing varying themes from background themes.[11] In summary, we can conclude that words which are placed in close proximity to each other are most likely meant to be understood as relating to one another. 

The noted patterns above have relevance to our discussion for two reasons. First, the simple fact that they cannot be ignored. Whatever the grammar points do Aune should be ready to concede to. Second, these grammatical patterns can help us reach a likely conclusion of what John’s intent could have been in the text. As summarized above, words which are placed in close proximity to one another are most likely intended to be understood as relating to one another. In the text we clearly see that the time clause is closer to ἐσφαγμένου rather than γέγραπται. Perhaps the twelve-word spacing between the time clause and γέγραπται means little to Aune,[12] but, in light of the patterns discussed above, this spacing should mean a lot to the larger conversation surrounding the text.

Johannine Structure

However, perhaps we could give Aune the benefit of the doubt and concede that maybe John just writes differently than his other counterparts. If this is the case, then it would be permissible to understand the time clause as relating to γέγραπται despite the word distance.  Gregory Beale does note that the book of Revelation contains “more grammatical irregularities than any other Greek document in the ancient world.”[13] For instance, it has been observed that there exists a significant deviation from proper Greek grammar in Revelation 1:4 whereas ἀπὸ is constructed with the nominative case.[14] This instance alone demonstrates the possibility that John may be comfortable with deviating from grammatical norms in his writing.

But does that observation alone discredit any appeal to the general Greek grammatical patterns as discussed above? If we look at the data presented to us in the remainder of the Johannine literature, then we are brought to conclude that the most likely affirmation is no. There are two reasons why we conclude this. First, the larger Johannine literature demonstrates that John prefers placing his time clauses in close proximity to what they reference. This can be observed in places such as John 17:24 and Revelation 17:8. [15] Second, the larger Johannine literature also demonstrates to us a pattern that we can believe most likely applies to Revelation as well. That pattern is that John’s use of ἀπὸ is always in close proximity to its referent.

The noted observations above have relevance to our discussion for one big reason. Aune’s proposal asks us to make a large exception for John in Revelation 13:8 which is not seen anywhere else in his writings. Aune thinks that, by theological necessity, we ought to overlook the twelve-word distance between the time clause and the word Aune believes the time clause relates to. For what we have just observed, to concede to acknowledge John’s intent of doing such is unlikely.

Even Aune recognizes the tension his claim, and so he attempts to get around it by stating the possibility that τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου is actually a redactional addition to the text.[16] However, his claim is ungrounded. Aune’s only appeal for this claim is that the entirety of the phrase in question is syntactically awkward.[17] This assertion of syntactical awkwardness is a self-imposed awkwardness he has placed on the text. If we read the text for what it is, in light of general Greek grammatical patterns and Johannine grammatical patterns, then we would conclude that the most likely intent of John is the position for which we are arguing for.

Aune’s conclusion does not cope well with the observations which have been discussed. Aune would conclude that the twelve-word gap is not significant to the discussion.[18] However, we may conclude that it is significant. We have discussed that both Greek and Johannine grammatical patterns demonstrate the proximity of words to each other matters. For the discussion at hand, that means we must not overlook the significance of how close the time clause is to ἐσφαγμένου. Had John intended for the time clause to rather relate to γέγραπται then we would expect it to be placed in closer proximity. However, since it is not, we are led to conclude that the most likely conclusion is that John intended for it to relate to ἐσφαγμένου.

Revelation 17:8

Part of Aune’s argumentation is that since Revelation 17:8 so closely resembles Revelation 13:8, the former should be a determining factor for understanding the discussion at hand.[19] What Aune seems to do is employ a proper hermeneutical principle, the clear interpreting the obscure, to an improper context. We may agree that Revelation 17:8 does closely resemble Revelation 13:8 without agreeing that the latter ought to exactly resemble the former. As we will discuss, the hermeneutical principle that Aune seems to employ is unnecessary to the text at hand. It is unnecessary because of three reasons. First, it is improper in this specific circumstance to employ a hermeneutical principle for a discussion that centers around grammatical construction. Second, the text being discussed is only obscure if one makes it obscure by the presuppositions they bring to the text. Third, we can simply recognize that John can do what he wants to do while writing.

Firstly, we may agree that the hermeneutical principle, the clear interprets the obscure, is a valid principle. But that does not mean we have to concede that this principle ought to be applied to the text at hand. The reason is that the hermeneutical principle is generally applied to issues relating to theology. For example, evangelicals have had to wrestle with the obscure theology of James 2:14 by way of understanding it in light of the clear theology presented in texts such as Ephesians 2:8-9 and Galatians 5:22-23. But, for the text being discussed, we are not discussing a theological topic but rather a grammatical topic.[20] When we are discussing grammatical constructions, we ought not to apply the hermeneutical principle stated above. Otherwise, we risk forcing the text to say what we think it ought to say as compared to other texts. Rather, we ought to employ grammatical principles, such as identifying grammatical patterns, that can direct us to understand what is intended to be said (as discussed in the section above).

Secondly, the text being discussed is only theologically obscure if one makes it obscure. Aune believes that the reading of the time clause as relating to ἐσφαγμένου is obscure because such does not align with what he presupposes as being theologically accurate.[21] However, if we read the text as it is then it is straightforward in what it intends to say. Additionally, as will be discussed in a later section, the theological obscurity that Aune thinks would happen if we read the time clause as relating to ἐσφαγμένου is non-existent.

Thirdly, Mounce states a premise that counters Aune’s concern about the text being discussed not aligning well with Revelation 17:8. He says that “the premise that John must be absolutely consistent in his literary expression is questionable. There is no particular reason why he should be denied the freedom to use a given phrase in several ways.”[22] In other words, John should be able to say what he wants to say in his writing even if it may seem a bit confusing to us. Our job is not to reorganize John’s words to whatever makes sense to us. Rather our job is to make sense of John’s words in light of the rest of Scripture. Additionally, as argued in the previous section, John’s sentence structure takes away any grammatical obscurity that Aune believes is present. John’s word structure in the text being discussed presents to us a clear understanding of what he intended to be read. This is supported by his word structure in the rest of his written literature.

Aune’s conclusion does not cope well with what has been discussed. Firstly, his method of reaching his conclusion is wrong. He employed a hermeneutical principle in a situation that does not warrant its use. We can suppose that the reason why he did such was to address a theological presupposition he brought to the text. Secondly, the text is only obscure to Aune because his presuppositions make it obscure. Thirdly, Aune fails to simply realize that John can do what he wants to do when writing. If John wishes to use the same time clause differently, then he is free to do so. Our conclusion here is that Aune’s reliance on Revelation 17:8 to understand Revelation 13:8 is baseless. What Aune ends up doing with Revelation 13:8 is forcing its grammar to mimic Revelation 17:8 to fit his framework.

Theological Consideration

As stated previously, Aune’s reason for wanting to associate the time clause with γέγραπται rather than ἐσφαγμένου is due to his presupposition of theological necessity. Aune states that “It is logically and theologically impossible to make sense of the statement that the Lamb ‘was slaughtered before the foundation of the world.’”[23]  However, what theological worries Aune has can be explained. We will discuss several points to demonstrate such. First, we will discuss why it is not a farfetched idea to say that the Lamb was slaughtered before the foundation of the world. Second, we will discuss how the use of the time clause in Revelation 13:8 (as pertaining to ἐσφαγμένου) makes theological sense in light of all other uses of the time clause in the New Testament. Third, we will discuss what exactly Revelation 13:8 is trying to communicate and how such is a complement to what is found in Revelation 17:8.

Firstly, it is not outside the norm of the New Testament Scripture to make an assertion such as the one in the text. In other words, it is not illogical for us to say that the Lamb was slaughtered before the foundation of the world. A key text that we look to is 1 Peter 1:19-20.[24] The text at hand is often compared to 1 Peter 1:19-20 because it is posited that John means something in Revelation 13:8 that is similar to 1 Peter 1:19-20: that the redemptive plan concerning the death of Jesus was established in the eternity past. It must be noted, however, that the time clause in the 1 Peter text is slightly different than the text being discussed, however such is not a major grammatical concern.[25]

Secondly, the time clause found within the text being discussed is utilized throughout the remainder of the New Testament text in a way which could rebuttal Aune’s concern. If we take a look at the entirety of the New Testament text, we will see that that phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου is used seven times.[26] In each instance of its use, it is communicating an event which is crucial to redemptive history.[27] Examples of this time clause being used to highlight crucial events in redemptive history are found in texts such as Matthew 25:34, Ephesians 1:4, and Hebrews 4:3. Aune’s worry is that the time clause in the text being discussed has to be understood as being a literal, definite point in time. However, as we have observed, that is not the given consensus of its general use. The time clause is not restrained to the description of an event that has a literal, definite point in time. Rather, it can be utilized to highlight a crucial event in redemptive history.

Thirdly, George Caird presents us with a balanced view. The text being discussed ought not to be conformed to Revelation 17:8 but rather it should be read as a fitting complement to Revelation 17:8.[28] In other words, both the means of redemption and the names of the redeemed are included in the predestining purposes of God. John is presenting to us in these two texts two separate angles of the all-encompassing gem of redemptive history.

What does all the above mean for the text being discussed? As stated earlier, Aune’s chief concern regarding the text is a theological concern. Aune worries that if the text were to be read with the time clause relating to ἐσφαγμένου then we would be affirming something which, to him, cannot be theologically true.[29] However, as discussed above, a reading of the text whereas the time clause relates to ἐσφαγμένου does not spell theological disaster. Rather, what it communicates is an already held belief. Schreiner summarizes the intent of the text by stating that its purpose “is to underscore that the Lamb’s death wasn’t an accident. It was planned from the beginning so that salvation through the Lamb is not plan B.”[30] In other words, the intent of the text is to communicate that the death of Christ for the remission of sins is part of, and plays a significant role in, redemptive history as a whole.

Aune’s conclusion does not cope well with what has been discussed. We have demonstrated that to state that the Lamb was slaughtered before the foundation of the world is not incoherent with other parts of Scripture. We have also demonstrated that the use of the time clause in other parts of the New Testament aids us in our understanding in how the time clause relates to ἐσφαγμένου. And, in conclusion, we have discussed a proper understanding of Revelation 13:8 alongside Revelation 17:8. What theological worries that Aune has can be well explained and accounted for on the basis of the rest of the New Testament.

Conclusion

Aune presents good argumentation for why we should not consider the time clause in Revelation 13:8 as relating to ἐσφαγμένου. Clearly, his argumentation is considered valid amongst several translation committees and scholars. However, at the end of the day, we must conclude that he is most likely wrong. Aune’s conclusion is most likely wrong because it overlooks several things. Firstly, it overlooks the grammatical data that we have observed. The grammatical data we observed indicates that John most likely intended for the time clause to relate to ἐσφαγμένου. Secondly, it overly relies upon Revelation 17:8 when such is not necessary. There is no solid reason why we should believe that the grammatical points, as discussed, ought to be overlooked simply because of the close similarities with Revelation 17:8. Lastly, it over emphasizes a theological concern. When investigated, there is not a large theological concern that Aune says there is. Rather, there is a theological cohesion and complementation. All of this leads us to conclude that the time clause in Revelation 13:8 most likely applies to ἐσφαγμένου.

__________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Similar translations include the NASB, the NET, and the HCSB.

[2] Similar translations include the KJV, the NLT, and (interestingly) the Vulgate.

[3] Other scholars who agree with Aune would include Stephen Smalley, Gregory Beale, and Henrey Swete.

[4] The only noticeable difference between the opinions of Aune and his other contemporaries, who share the same conclusion, is that Aune believes that part of the text being discussed is a redactional addition. This opinion, belonging mostly to him, will be discussed later.

[5] David E. Aune, Revelation 6-16, World Biblical Commentary, vol. 52B, ed. Ralph Martin (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 747.

[6] Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 343.

[7] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 746-747.

[8] Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 287.

[9] Aaron Michael Jensen, “A Primer on Greek Word Order,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 118, no. 3 (Summer 2021): 184.

[10] Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 292.

[11] Iver Larsen, “Word Order and Relative Prominence in New Testament Greek,” Notes on Translation 15, no. 2 (2001): 1.

[12] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 746-747.

[13] Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 96.

[14] Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 146.

[15] The time clause in John 17:24 is constructed slightly differently than the one in Revelation 13:8 but is deemed similar enough to compare.

[16] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 747.

[17] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 747.

[18] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 746-747.

[19] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 747.

[20] However, as will be discussed later, Aune does makes it a theological topic. Here I want to address the differing paradigms that Aune and myself bring to the discussion. It seems to me that Aune wants to understand the grammatical aspects of Revelation 13:8 in light of theological insight. I only want to understand the grammatical aspects of the text in light of grammatical categories. I do not mean by such that theology plays no role in this discussion, as a later section will discuss. I do mean, however, that theology does not play as large of a role as Aune may think it does.

[21] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 746-747.

[22] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F.F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 256.

[23] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 747.

[24] David L. Mathewson, Revelation: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament, ed. Martin M. Culy (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 174.

[25] The time clause in the 1 Peter text utilizes πρὸ rather than ἀπὸ. It is my opinion that the construction is not significant enough for us to discredit.

[26] Ten times, if we also take into consideration the slight variation of the phrase, πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. Even though there is a slight grammatical difference between the two phrases, both of them are utilized in the same fundamental way by the New Testament writers. Therefore, they can both be referenced as essentially being synonymous to each other in meaning.

[27] Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Moises Silva (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 504.

[28] George B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, Black’s New Testament Commentaries, 2nd ed. (London, UK: A&C Black, 1984), 168.

[29] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 746-747.

[30] Thomas R. Schreiner, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the Greek New Testament, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Joshua W. Jipp (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 524.