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

[Aaron]

Absolutely!!!

Stahp.

 

[JonC]

But never in the Bble.

What you don't appear to understand is that τετέλεσται comes from the word τελεω, which is used in the Bible to indicate a debt paid. Surely, with all your studies in Greek, this is not beyond you?

I linked to a blog where the writer says that the word is indeed used to mean "it is paid." I understand that you have quoted a source that says that it isn't and I have no way of knowing which is correct. But if the present tense, active voice of τελεω is used to mean "pay," which it is, then there is no reason why the perfect tense, passive voice of τελεω should not be used to mean "pay."
Moreover, I have started a thread on Colossians 2:13-15, which states that God, in Christ, cancelled our "certificate of debt" and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. That sure sounds to me as if Christ has paid the price of our redemption

You mean, yes (Matthew 17:24; Romans 13:6). Those two verses use τελεω, from which τετέλεσται comes. To deny this would be like saying that "he thought" is not the same verb as "I think."

Again, you mean, yes, for the same reason that I have given.

What you do not understand τελεω does not mean just "paid". It is never used to mean "paid' without accompanying a debt (like "tax fulled", or written on a note for land tax).

But you missed my point. I already said one could break down the word and find where a derivative was used to indicate something was paid (that a tax was fulfilled). BUT that is eisegesis. Why? Because the word was never used to mean "paid in full" in the Greek language.

You are saying that Jesus used that word for the first and last time to mean "paid in full". But what of Jesus used the word to how it was actually used in the Greek language? Then it meand "it is finished".

You deny Jesus said "It is finished". Others, like @David Lamb in this instance, will agree with you because they agree with your theory.

But what you fail to understand is that the "it" in the verse determines the meaning. You have to prove that the "it" in the context of the verse is a debt.

Then you can make your claim that Jesus invented a new use of the word.


I do not know why you feel the need to change "it is finished" to "it is paid in full". If "it" is a financial obligation then "finished" would mean "paid".


Also, "paid in full" does mot support your theory any more than my position.

The death and suffering, the power of the devil, the wages man earns, was indeed "paid in full" on the cross. Jesus experienced what we earn.


But "it is finished" is more faithful to the text.

That is why I argue against your position - not because it somehow supports your theory over other views.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

The overall point is it does not matter.

You could define the "it" as a debt. You coukd say "it is finished" is a mistranslation of "it is paid in full".

But "paid in full" does not support your theory over other positions.

So why not leave the "it" with the ambiguity it has in that verse?

I do believe it was paid in full on the Cross. Jesus suffered the full powers of darkness, the product of sin, the wages of sin, the power of the devil, our curse was fully laid on Him, human sin fully placed on Him. It was indeed paid in full - not in part.


The reason I reject "paid in full" in favor of "it is finished" is twofold.

1. The word is never used in the Greek language to mean "paid in full".

2. The verse leaves ambiguity in the "it".


Now.... can you and @David Lamb line out "it is finished" in your Bibles and write "It is paid in full"?

Sure. Nobody is stopping you.

It would not prove your view. But go ahead. You probably can't buy a translation that says what you want so make your own changes.