It is Finished

[37818]

He said that Christ's redemptive work was finished with Christ's resurrection, not his crucifixion.

The resurrection is a confirmation of what was completed prior to John 19:28.

 

[JonC]

Scott Hahn (Former Presbyterian, now a Catholic apologist) made a big dissertation saying that Christ statement was not referring to his "Finished Work of Redemption" but having something to do with the "last cup" of the passover feast.

He said that Christ's redemptive work was finished with Christ's resurrection, not his crucifixion. Not that I agree or anything but would be interesting to have others chime in on this.

Here is his lecture in case you are interested:

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Scott Hahn (Former Presbyterian, now a Catholic apologist) made a big dissertation saying that Christ statement was not referring to his "Finished Work of Redemption" but having something to do with the "last cup" of the passover feast.

He said that Christ's redemptive work was finished with Christ's resurrection, not his crucifixion. Not that I agree or anything but would be interesting to have others chime in on this.

Here is his lecture in case you are interested:

That's a really bizarre interpretation!

 

[John of Japan]

No, I did not make a mistake and it is not all good because you teach people at your church.

The Greek word τελεῖτε DOES NOT MEAN PAY. It never has and never will. Stop being so defensive and look at the words in Greek. Then consider why we use "pay".

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."

τελεῖτε ("you fulfill", "you accomplish", "you finish")

φόρους ("taxes", "tribute")

A literal translation is "you fulfill your taxes".

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.

How would WE say that? "You pay your taxes."


BUT you CANNOT take the fact we would use "pay" because "fulfill" (while technically also correct) is awkward and READ THAT BACK into the Greek word.

This is BASIC hermeneutics.

It is not good because if you do not understand this concept you will make many more errors dealing with Scripture and any other translated text.

I am not "beating up" on you, just trying to help you understand a very simple and necessary fact when it comes to dealing with foreign languages. It is a very important fact if you are going to deal with the Greek or Hebrew. It is even more important if you plan on teaching others.

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.

 

[JonC]

That's a really bizarre interpretation!

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[JonC]

@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!"?

 

[John of Japan]

@John of Japan

Now I am curious.

Are you aware of Τετέλεσται bring used to state a debt 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."

And as a translator would you translate Jesus' words as "It is paid in full!"?

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

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.

 

[Marooncat79]

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.

So you are saying context matters. Lol

 

[JonC]

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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Greek word τελεῖτε DOES NOT MEAN PAY. It never has and never will. Stop being so defensive and look at the words in Greek. Then consider why we use "pay".

Don't tell me; tell the NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, all of which translate τελεῖτε as 'pay.'

 

[Armchair Apologist]

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.

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.

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.

I would agree

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.

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.

Now...I expect you may initially reject this as it is contrary to PSA. But just consider it before rejecting it.

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?"

 

[Armchair Apologist]

That's a really bizarre interpretation!

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.

 

[JonC]

Don't tell me; tell the NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, all of which translate τελεῖτε as 'pay.'

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.

 

[Aaron]

Yes. It's really very simple:

John Chapter 19

28​	After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst.

The prophecies surrounding the crucifixion were at that point FULFILLED.

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

 

[Aaron]

But that our debt was paid on the Cross is explicit in the law of the trespass offering, in which specific damages to the injured party, whether it be God or a man, were assessed and remunerated.

 

[JonC]

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?"

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.

 

[Aaron]

In the OT and NT the atonement is not appeasing God

That is false.