37818
Well-Known Member
The resurrection is a confirmation of what was completed prior to John 19:28.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It is Finished
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
I think it depends on what work. But I have considered the same.
I would definitely say the Atonement was finished in one sense at the Resurrection, but in another it isn't until it is recieved by faith.
Here is what I mean-
Let's look at atoning for sins in the OT sacrifices.
1. The priest enters the Tabernacle by sacrificing an animal. He applies blood to the entrance. He enters the Most Holy Place through the blood of an animal.
2. He makes atonement for himself.
3. The people offer a sacrifice (a "gift" of obedience), the sacrifice of atonement.
4. They shed the blood of the animal.
5. The priest takes that blood into the Tabernacle.
6. The priest applies the blood to the altar.
7. The bible says in this way the priest "makes atonement for the sins of the people".
Now let's look at the Atonement.
1. Christ offers Himself as a guilt offering in an act of obedience.
2. Christ enters the Most Holy Place not made with hands through His own blood.
3. This atones (reconciles) God to mankind. (Christ is the "Second Adam", a representative of mankind, the Son of Man).
4. Christ has made the Sacrifice for us. His blood has been shed once for all.
What is left? OUR actual atonement (individually).
God set forth Christ as a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) through His blood to be recieved (or applied) by faith.
Our sins are not atoned, we are not reconciled to God, until that blood is applied (recieved by faith). The blood of Christ cleanses from all unrighteousness.
Now...I expect you may initially reject this as it is contrary to PSA. But just consider it before rejecting it.
That's a really bizarre interpretation!
Τελέω (of which τελεῖτε is the present active indicative 2nd person singular) certainly can mean "pay," as Martin has shown. Mounce (Concise Greek English Dictionary, accessed through e-sword) has "pay" as a meaning, as does Friberg, Thayer, Abbot-Smith, and all my other lexicons. Some say "pay taxes" but others simply say "pay."
The "literal translation" idea is overworked. When a word is polysemous (multiple meanings) as is τελέω, it is over simplification to say "literal translation." The context must be examined, and only then can the proper meaning of several (or many) be determined.
Another note you missed: in John 19:30, the form is the perfect tense: Τετέλεσται. The Greek perfect tense indicates an action accomplished with permanent results. So Jesus was saying the atonement has been finished forever, very obviously. I can't think of any other reason He would have said "Accomplished forever" at such a time. And yes, it could be legitimately translated "Paid forever," since Jesus does not say a direct object to the verb. though I would not translate it that way.
Last edited:
The theology student part of me wants to examine it from a Catholic perspective.
The 57 year old part me does not have that much time left to waste.
I agree with what yoy say except (if I understood you) the idea that saying "Τελέω" alone to the Jews would be understood as "pay".
Even in English saying "fulfill" could mean "pay", if in that specific context.
My argument is that to view Τετέλεσται as meaning "paid in full" demands reading into that one's own presupposed ideas. It demands supposing that Jesus is speaking of a debt that is fulfilled.
I also read into the passage to determine what is fulfilled. So that is not in any way a complaint.
I read verse 28 (the verse just before Jesus says "It is finished") into verse 30. So my understanding (opinion) is that Jesus was speaking of fulfilling Scripture - all of Scripture foreshadowing the Incarnation to His death on the cross.
If you are bored and just want to convince me that Τελέω (without qualification of a word like "trubute") means "paid" or that Τετέλεσται means "paid in full" then you need to show me in ancient Greek writings.
As it stands, I believe the words spoken in verse 30 are directly related to verse 28, with verse 28 providing the context.
@John of Japan
Now I am curious.
Are you aware of Τετέλεσται bring used to state a debt is "paid in full"?
And as a translator would you translate Jesus' words as "It is paid in full!"?
Now I am curious.
Are you aware of Τετέλεσται bring used to state a debt is "paid in full"?
And as a translator would you translate Jesus' words as "It is paid in full!"?
No, but that form of the word occurs only here in Scripture. As I said, some lexicons have simply the word "pay" as one meaning, so yes, it could bnr used simply for "pay."
I already said I would not. But I would not see that as a mistaken translation since, as I said, there is no direct object to the verb. Please go back and read my post. I consider it legitimate to translate it either as "Paid in full" or "The task is finished." The Greek word is polysemous, as I said.
Last edited:
Do you think the usage of Τετέλεσται occurs in ancient Greek writings matters (as it is in Plato's writings, actually several ancient seculat writings, for example)?
I ask because it seems to me that what you are saying is that Τετέλεσται could mean "pay" because it appears as such in some lexicons...but we do not know of any actual instance where it means "pay".
I searched years ago and found the word quite often. But never in the context of paying a debt.
If it were in a lexicon prior to the "Τετέλεσται on ancient Egyptian notes" claim (which turned out to be another word) then I would be interested in reading about it. I am hesitant with claims after that time and would want to know the original sources where that meaning appeared.
That does not mean I am correct. But I have a kindred spirit with the Missouri folk.
I would see it as a mistranslation if there is no evidence the word was ever used to mean "paid in full".
We have plenty of words in English that could mean several things if dissected. But if they were never used to mean something I am not sure it is right to say they could mean that something (except in future usage).
The reason is (and this may be weird...but I can be weird on occasions so object lightly) I believe that words are essentually symbols that convey thoughts. If a thought was not associated with the word then I do not believe that thought could be a possible meaning.
So you are saying context matters. Lol
I have always said context matters because context always matters.
This is one part of what I mean by translation not being a matching game. Context dictates meaning. Know what I mean, Dog?
Last edited:
Don't tell me; tell the NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, all of which translate τελεῖτε as 'pay.'Armchair Apologist
Active Member
God sent forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood (Rom 3:25). I believe the Greek word here is hilasterion meaning "mercy seat" so I think we are in agreement here. We could expound our way through Hebrews 10 but I am all for brevity here.
I would agree
I think this is where all of the friction and "theological bar fights" arise. We understand that we are "Chosen in him from before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4), that Christ has been "Slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8) and that our "names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world (Rev 17:8). We may understand this from God's perspective that our standing with him is sure and secure for all eternity. It is not that God looks through the annals of time and predicts the future but that God dwells in the "eternal present" and what we are therefore reading is a very present and definite assurance of this!
Where things tend to go off the rails is where election and predestination are taken to the logical extreme and people PRESUME to be either "elect" or "non-elect" based upon this (fatalism) and this is usually where non-Calvinists will go in order to argue their position. For certain "Hyper-Calvinists" who hold to such a view, I believe they (the non-Calvinists) have a point. Although we may be "Chosen in him before the foundation of the world," we are also admonished to "make our calling and election sure" (2 Pet 1:10) and Ephesians 2 makes it clear that there was once a time when we were literally "dead in trespasses and sin" and "children of wrath." Therefore, the Methodists (and Pietists) were correct in their insistence that there must be a "Born Again" experience and of course they took this "experience" to another extreme but that is for another thread. I adamantly reject the "Primitive Baptist" position that the preaching of the gospel is not necessary to save the elect and I would confidently bet that most Calvinists here would as well.
Perhaps I may be a little dense here but what here contradicts PSA? Are you saying that in order to hold to PSA, you must take the fatalistic, hyper-calvinistic position that we are "saved from ages past" regardless of whether we have had an actual "Conversion Experience?"
Last edited:
Armchair Apologist
Active Member
Yes, it is! First time I ever heard of it. My mother is still a hard-core Catholic and insisted I listened a CD set of Scott Hahn probably hoping he would convince me to return to the "Mother Church!" Yes, the Catholics certainly love their far out mystical interpretations of the scriptures and I guess Scott Hahn is happy to oblige them.
No. They do not translate the word pay. They translate the word combination as "pay" (fulfilling the taxes) based on the context. The "tax" is what is fulfilled. Therefore it is paying the tax.
IF the context is a tax and you are fulfilling that tax then you are paying that tax.
Dude....It ain't rocket science.
It all depends on what is being fulfilled. Homer used it for the completion of a journey (not the paying of a completed journey).
Now, if you could show that verses 28-29 is about a debt (establish that context from the actual text) then you may have a point and this is the first time in history it was used in that context.
But the passage itself (the entire passage) does not mention a debt. You are taking the word out of context.
And for no reason. Even if Jesus said "it is paid in full" this would not prove PSA.
For centuries Christians believed that we would have to pay for our sins and that that through death Jesus destroyed him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.
But you have to explain why - given the fact a debt is not mentioned in the passage, and what is mentioned in the passage is fulfilling Scripture - that what was fulfilled was a debt instead of Scriptute.
This is eisegesis. Plain and simple.
The New Jerusalem is here.
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. - Revelation 21:1-6 KJV
PSA holds that God punished Jesus for our sins instead of us, that this is the atonement (we no longer owe a debt of sin to God).
In the OT and NT the atonement is not appeasing God but cleansing from sin and in the NT this atonement (this cleansing) is by faith.
Armchair Apologist
Active Member
I am going to try this again being very careful of my verbiage here:
Romans 8:3-4 - For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
1. First thing we see here is the inadequacy of the law and its inability to make anyone "righteous." The only thing the law could for a sinful person was reveal the fact that they were a lawbreaker. Paul makes the case throughout his epistle to the Romans that this is the very reason for the law (Rom 3:19-20).
2. In order to remedy this, God sent his Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. Christ was the righteous lamb, born without the curse of Adam, fulfilled the law perfectly. Christ was blameless, spotless, etc.
3. In the likeness of sinful flesh, God made Jesus to be SIN FOR US (2 Cor 5:21). In other words, Jesus took upon himself that which DID NOT BELONG to him.
4. And for sin (what sin? Our sin!), CONDEMNED sin in the flesh.
The underlying Greek word here is κατακρίνω (katakrino) (V-AIA-3S which according to the Thayer's Greek lexicon means "To give judgment against, to judge worthy of punishment, to condemn, condemn to death."
5. For what reason was sin condemned in the flesh? That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us! Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf, took upon himself our sin, bore the penalty for this sin, that we might be found righteous in him!
I would say that second only to 2 Cor 5:21, this is perhaps the most clear, concise explanation of a substitutionary atonement one could find in the scriptures!
Faith in what? Paul said to the Philippian Jailor "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." To what did he believe? Should be clear that he believed upon what Christ has done (tetelestai)
I guess we could argue over semantics whether God actually "punished" Jesus for our sins but what exactly does "katakrino" mean here? What exactly happens to someone who has been condemned?