What is Propitiation and is it really the heart of the gospel?

[Martin Marprelate]

No. Τετέλεσται cannot be applied to debts. You have the wrong word.

The word you are speaking of is very close, at least to our eyes, so I understand your mistake.

The word you define is τετελώνηται ("paid in full"). This is the word found on ancient notes.

Τετέλεσται refers to something being completed, acomplished, or finished. But never a debt (something like building a house, completing a college course, finishing a project).

While these may be related words they are different words.

The fact Τετέλεσται cannot mean "paid in full" itself does not disprove your theory. It just does not prove it either.

That is why the proper title for PSA is The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Like The Substitution Theory of Atonement, it cannot be proven using Scripture as the standard.

And same with Christus Victor/ Ransom Theory. With these the facts can be proven BUT what makes them theories is the idea that specific aspects are the main focus (Scripture does not prioritize focusing on Christ's victory over evil against Christ's obedience to God, for example).

Matthew 17:24. 'Does your teacher not PAY the Temple tax?'
Romans 13:6. 'For because of this you also PAY taxes.' The Greek word in both cases is teleo from which we get tetelestai.
The fact that both of these verses mention taxes cannot be taken as proof that it never means anything else but paying taxes. The root meaning of teleo is to finish. When you pay a debt it is finished. The Lord Jesus taught us to pray, 'Forgive us our debts.' God has answered our prayers by sending the Lord Jesus to pay the debt of sin that we owed. We owe it no more; it is finished, paid in full. Penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

Matthew 17:24. 'Does your teacher not PAY the Temple tax?'
Romans 13:6. 'For because of this you also PAY taxes.' The Greek word in both cases is teleo from which we get tetelestai.
The fact that both of these verses mention taxes cannot be taken as proof that it never means anything else but paying taxes. The root meaning of teleo is to finish. When you pay a debt it is finished. The Lord Jesus taught us to pray, 'Forgive us our debts.' God has answered our prayers by sending the Lord Jesus to pay the debt of sin that we owed. We owe it no more; it is finished, paid in full. Penal substitution.

No, Martin. I am not sure where you are getting your information but words (even related words) do not work like that.

For the record, ὀφειλήματα has a broader meaning than "debts". It means "obligations" or "faults". It could be a debt. And in the case of the Lords Prayer I believe it does (Jesus was teaching the Disciples, they were under the Law, and the Law is a certificate of obligations which became a certificate of debts as they failed to merit the blessings of the Law).


In Matthew 17:24 the word used for the Temple tax is δίδραχμα (didrachma). It was a silver coin. The verse does not mention "tax" by name but it was a Roman coin collected as the Temple tax. The word for paying this tax is τελεῖ.


In Romans 13:6 the word translated tax is φόρους. The word for paying the tax is τελεῖτε.


I understand that you want to have absolutely proof that PSA is not a theory. I get it. But you will not find it in the Bible. There are other interpretations - other theories.

That is why all of these theories fall under the category "Theories of the Atonement". They are different ways people throughout history have understood the Atonement. Each sect leans on one or more of these understandings as their doctrine. But they are theories.

What we cannot do is change God's words to meet our expectations or desires. We should never do that.


For an honest discussion to take place we all have to deal honestly with our views and with God's Word.


I explained why my view, Christis Victor, is a theory. Unlike PSA it is not because the doctrine cannot be found in the actual text of Scripture - it obviously can, every word. But Christus Victor holds that the primary focus of the Atonement, the primary way Scripture presents the Atonement, is as Christ's victory over Satan, freeing us from the bonds of sin and death. That is why it is a theory. Men reasoned out that this is the primary way the Atonement should be viewed.

But it could be viewed through Christ's obedience. It could be viewed through the ontological result of the Atonement. It could be viewed through Christ's interactions, how He lived and died. It could be viewed in the negative - the condemnation of the lost under a Christ-centered judgment.

I hold Christis Victor as completely true in content, but as the primary focus? That I hold with a grain of salt as my understanding. I certainly would not lean on it being more of a focus than other passages about the Atonement.