"It is finished"?

[Isa_Almisry]

What exactly did Jesus mean by these words?

I always thought it meant that his suffering was done. His time on earth, and what he came to do here, was done.
My Baptist friends try to tell that it means Jesus did all there was to do for us. All our sins are forgiven and that is that. We don’t have to do anything more but believe.
Please help me respond to them with what Jesus really meant.

I forgot to mention that one way we know the Baptist interpretation is wrong is from St. Paul’s interpretation (Col. 1:24):
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

Now, if it wass finishing in the sense the Baptists say, there wouldn’t be anything “lacking” to fill up, now would there? Since we know (we do know, Protestant friends, don’t we?) that St. Paul is not contradicting Christ’s words from the Cross, we therefore know that the interpretation must be something else, now don’t we?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

What exactly did Jesus mean by these words?

I always thought it meant that his suffering was done. His time on earth, and what he came to do here, was done.
My Baptist friends try to tell that it means Jesus did all there was to do for us. All our sins are forgiven and that is that. We don’t have to do anything more but believe.
Please help me respond to them with what Jesus really meant.

I have looked at the Greek and argued this point before – so let me make a few observations. If the word actually meant “finished” it would be redundant because it says just a few verses earlier that he saw everything was “finished” – but then in contradiction to that statement – Jesus must say something to fulfill scripture.

The word, in Greek manuscripts, esp. put out by protestants on the web is capitalized in Greek – because to many it seems SO important to their theology.

St. Jerome who translated the latin vulgate DOES NOT use the word “finished” or “completed” and from my study of the Greek – he is absolutely right in refusing to do so.
There are two variants of this word in the Greek which differ by a single letter (s) sigma.
When the word unambiguously means “finished” it is simply te-tele-tai. But that is NOT the word actually used on the cross, or immediately before – the word in greek is te-tele-s-tai. Now any standard protastand lexicon (even ones masquerading as classical Greek) will simply lump this variant with “finidhed” – however, everything I have studied – and there are many examples of the two forms of the word in Greek – shows by context that they DO have a different meaning.

St. Jerome chose to translate the word “consummated” – In the sense of a marriage, it would mean the sexual and permanent act had taken place, so that no further dissolution of the marriage were possible. But, the obvious difference is that the word consummated indicates THE BEGINNING of an activity (mariied life/state) not the “finished” marriage.

In the first place, if it were “finished” then one would not NEED to anything else – not even believe – because he even paid for that. But not even a protestant/baptist will go that far.

In my study of the Greek – I have to agree with St. Jeromes interpretation – whenever I see the variant with the extra (s) it is never the end of the activity but the beginning.
For example the word is used by Ezra in seputagint with regard to the rebuilding of the temple – but the word is used BEFORE a stone has been re-laid.

The word is odd in another way – it is in the perfect – which means that it refers to something completed in the past and which can never be changed, yet it is used of things which are set in motion – not things which are completed. But the perfect requires one to admit that the event is forever irrevocable – for example: the words spoken by the angel to Mary : hail she-who-has-been-filled-with-grace is also in the perfect. So, we know that the blessedness of Mary is permanent.

The other odd thing about this word – which is not weird with respect to Mary – is that it makes no grammatical sense that I can discern when Jesus says it. It is a sentence fragment unconnected with anything else as far as I can tell – and therefore terribly ambiguous.

The root word could be tele- as in the “end” or “purpose” which is why the protestants want to say “finished” – although if you think about the american word tele-vision, you might quickly realize that a television is not a “finished” vision, but a sight of something far away – more appropriately, I would say a TV exists for the purpose of vision, not the finish of it.

There is an alternate word root besides tele which could be used to make this word – and the word means essentially “to be” – In earlier Greek , althogh the word is rarely used – it meant that something was coming into being/fullness? . If I can get to some Greek fonts, I can spell the differences out and show what the Greek sentences look like if you have any interest.

One bit of speculation I have is that he may have been saying “Father” very eloquently in Greek, for the Hebrew word YHWH – the four letter copy in the Greek of the hebrew word – is essentially an ambiguous noun like object which can mean “I am” “I am who am” "I am he who is’ – (My Hebrew is poor, so if I fudged that a little, someone can clear it up.)

In the Greek the word te-tele-s-tai, like the word the angel speaks to Mary are the same gramatical form – meaning that it could function as a NAME / TITLE. Eg: The other Gospels record Jesus speaking to his FATHER. This word in Greek has the potential of carrying that kind of meaning – and if it does, then it would be a consistent witness with the other Gospels.

 

[colliric]

I have looked at the Greek and argued this point before – so let me make a few observations. If the word actually meant “finished” it would be redundant because it says just a few verses earlier that he saw everything was “finished” – but then in contradiction to that statement – Jesus must say something to fulfill scripture.

The word, in Greek manuscripts, esp. put out by protestants on the web is capitalized in Greek – because to many it seems SO important to their theology.

St. Jerome who translated the latin vulgate DOES NOT use the word “finished” or “completed” and from my study of the Greek – he is absolutely right in refusing to do so.
There are two variants of this word in the Greek which differ by a single letter (s) sigma.
When the word unambiguously means “finished” it is simply te-tele-tai. But that is NOT the word actually used on the cross, or immediately before – the word in greek is te-tele-s-tai. Now any standard protastand lexicon (even ones masquerading as classical Greek) will simply lump this variant with “finidhed” – however, everything I have studied – and there are many examples of the two forms of the word in Greek – shows by context that they DO have a different meaning.

Yes, this is why I personally think that “Accomplished” is a better translation too. “Finished” means something very finalized aand “over”, and may be misinterpreted by protestants. Accomplished can mean something finalized but also a kind of “my work is done, yours is only beginning” kind of notion.

Jesus, as one of my “trusty” Encyclopedia Britannica articles on “the Kingdom of God” notes, may have indeed been refering to the end of his Minestry on earth as the major part of the “coming of the kingdom of God” and he may have been reffering to his complete and total establishment(and continually renewed establishment throughout all time) of the Kingdom of God as represented on earth(The Church, and it’s believers) when he said “it is consumated” or “it is accomplished”. He may have been refering to the fact that his establishment of the Kingdom of God here has been accomplished or consumated.

In the article I read it states, with a certain validity, that Jesus saw the Kingdom perhaps as being established within that particular Generation, and at least partially or fully “at his Crucifixion and ressurection”. It is also, by it’s very nature, continually renewing itself until at the very end of time itself, the Kingdom of God is brought to full fruition in our becoming “one with christ”.

Using the words “Consumated” or “Accomplished” would certainly bolster that particular point of view.

 

[Phillipos]

Just recently I have heard that the Greek is translated, “it is paid in full” Perhaps retaining to the penalty for our sin being paid in full(for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life).

“Love drove Jesus to the cross. The cross drives me to love Jesus.”

 

[patrick457]

Just recently I have heard that the Greek is translated, “it is paid in full” Perhaps retaining to the penalty for our sin being paid in full(for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life).

“Love drove Jesus to the cross. The cross drives me to love Jesus.”

If I could extend your quote:

“Love drove Jesus to therer; it is love that kept Him there.”

While it is popularly interpreted that way and the word does appear on Greek papyri receipts (connecting the word to financial transactions), we could not be entirely sure that Jesus or John meant it in a purely transactial context.

There are a couple of instances in the New Testament where the Greek word teleō was used for the payment of taxes or tributes (Matt. 17:24; Rom. 13:6); however that doesn’t really seem relevant to Jesus’ words, and without the context and the presence of the word ‘tax’ or ‘tribute’ teleō would not really have the same meaning.

Also, in John 19:28, it is said:

After this, aware that everything was now finished (tetelestai), in order that the scripture might be fulfilled (teleiōthē), Jesus said, “I thirst.”

John uses the same word in the above passage too, in the sense of “to accomplish”, “to finish” or “to consummate”.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

If I could extend your quote:

“Love drove Jesus to therer; it is love that kept Him there.”

While it is popularly interpreted that way and the word does appear on Greek papyri receipts (connecting the word to financial transactions), we could not be entirely sure that Jesus or John meant it in a purely transactial context.

There are a couple of instances in the New Testament where the Greek word teleō was used for the payment of taxes or tributes (Matt. 17:24; Rom. 13:6); however that doesn’t really seem relevant to Jesus’ words, and without the context and the presence of the word ‘tax’ or ‘tribute’ teleō would not really have the same meaning.

Also, in John 19:28, it is said:

…

John uses the same word in the above passage too, in the sense of “to accomplish”, “to finish” or “to consummate”.

I have a problem with using “finished” as I noted in an older post – let me give a few further examples in Greek of why ; (I found my Greek Fonts!!!)

In your comment, I note you call the word a form of – τελε-ω (eg: teleō ).
If it was from that word – I would expect the perfect participle to be:
te-telei-tai ( τε-τελει-ται). There is no reason to insert the extra “σ”.
As far as I can tell, the spelling is arbitrary if one can spell it with the sigma and without it – which although plausible, the use of Both spelling variations by the same author would seem to indicate the author didn’t know how to spell.

( In english, for example, some newspapers use “nite” vs “night” in english – but it is rare to see them both in the same article, unless the author disagrees or is reporting on someone who uses the other spelling.).

Since a sigma ( σ ) is often used this way, I can see why people may have assumed it to be a variant spelling – but there is fairly strong circumstantial evidence to make me extremely skeptical.

1. Why would authors use both spellings in the same text if the text is not poetic?
2. The word is used for essentially different and contradictory meanings if “finished” — “consummated” are both valid translations of the same word. Apparently the word can only really mean “finished” in a restricted sense if at all.

Here’s an example where the word is used in Greek, which I do not think “finished” makes any sense * at all * in.

This is the same form said on the cross, WITH the extra sigma – although in this example it is part of a compound word so it has “syn” (συν) which means “with” or “together”, so “syn” - “te-teles-tai” – literally could be “with-has-been-finished” if taken that way – and I think that is mildly nonsensical!

But the state, “consumation” – or “with consumation” does make sense.
here’s the example text from the LXX.

1 Samu 20:7
εαν ταδε ειπ-η αγαθ-ως ειρηνη τ-ω δουλ-ω σου
και εαν σκληρως αποκριθη σοι γνωθι οτι συν-τε-τελε-σ-ται η κακια παρ` αυτου.

literally word parsing it contains the phrase:

know (γνωθι) that (οτι) together/with(συν-)"???"-(τε-τελε-σ-ται) the (η) bad/evil (κακι-α) “beside (παρ-) of-him (αυτ-ου)”

The last word is also a compound word, and is politely suggesting the evil “beside” Saul – also belongs to him. This is what is permanently “together/with” Saul.

I would be forced (mad libbs style) to translate either:

know that (he has finished???) the evil beside-him/of-his.

or

know that (he-has-consummated???) the evil beside-him/of-his.

KJV:
1Samu 20:7 – If he say thus, it is well; thy servant shall have peace; but if he be very wroth, then be sure that evil is determined by him.

Clearly, the evil is not yet carried out – but only is “purposed” unchangably in King Saul’s heart “if” he is wroth.

There are dozens of other examples which lead me to think that “finished” is almost always s very poor translation !

In the one example you give, of Matth 17:24 the word shows up as τε-τελει.
This word has no sigma, and is VERY similar to the form given in 2 Corinthians 12:9 eg: te-telei-tai (τε-τελει-ται). – and since form is just like the word on the Cross but WITHOUT the sigma, it ought to be something “finished” in the past and continuing consequences too. (And is the hypothetical spelling I would expect for a word coming from teleo)

“my power is MADE PERFECT in weakess” is the usual translation.
not: my power is “finished” in weakness – which is a bit hilarious.

Also, with the temple tax – is Jesus even “finished” paying the tax there?

So, now to the question, since you were so kind to share

Do you think, “finished” actually applies on the cross as is often translated?
And in what way / why?

-Thanks!

 

[patrick457]

I have a problem with using “finished” as I noted in an older post – let me give a few further examples in Greek of why ; (I found my Greek Fonts!!!)

In your comment, I note you call the word a form of – τελε-ω (eg: teleō ).
If it was from that word – I would expect the perfect participle to be:
te-telei-tai ( τε-τελει-ται). There is no reason to insert the extra “σ”.
As far as I can tell, the spelling is arbitrary if one can spell it with the sigma and without it – which although plausible, the use of Both spelling variations by the same author would seem to indicate the author didn’t know how to spell.

( In english, for example, some newspapers use “nite” vs “night” in english – but it is rare to see them both in the same article, unless the author disagrees or is reporting on someone who uses the other spelling.).

Since a sigma ( σ ) is often used this way, I can see why people may have assumed it to be a variant spelling – but there is fairly strong circumstantial evidence to make me extremely skeptical.

1. Why would authors use both spellings in the same text if the text is not poetic?
2. The word is used for essentially different and contradictory meanings if “finished” — “consummated” are both valid translations of the same word. Apparently the word can only really mean “finished” in a restricted sense if at all.

Here’s an example where the word is used in Greek, which I do not think “finished” makes any sense * at all * in.

This is the same form said on the cross, WITH the extra sigma – although in this example it is part of a compound word so it has “syn” (συν) which means “with” or “together”, so “syn” - “te-teles-tai” – literally could be “with-has-been-finished” if taken that way – and I think that is mildly nonsensical!

But the state, “consumation” – or “with consumation” does make sense.
here’s the example text from the LXX.

literally word parsing it contains the phrase:

know (γνωθι) that (οτι) together/with(συν-)"???"-(τε-τελε-σ-ται) the (η) bad/evil (κακι-α) “beside (παρ-) of-him (αυτ-ου)”

The last word is also a compound word, and is politely suggesting the evil “beside” Saul – also belongs to him. This is what is permanently “together/with” Saul.

I would be forced (mad libbs style) to translate either:

know that (he has finished???) the evil beside-him/of-his.

or

know that (he-has-consummated???) the evil beside-him/of-his.

Clearly, the evil is not yet carried out – but only is “purposed” unchangably in King Saul’s heart “if” he is wroth.

There are dozens of other examples which lead me to think that “finished” is almost always s very poor translation !

In the one example you give, of Matth 17:24 the word shows up as τε-τελει.
This word has no sigma, and is VERY similar to the form given in 2 Corinthians 12:9 eg: te-telei-tai (τε-τελει-ται). – and since form is just like the word on the Cross but WITHOUT the sigma, it ought to be something “finished” in the past and continuing consequences too. (And is the hypothetical spelling I would expect for a word coming from teleo)

“my power is MADE PERFECT in weakess” is the usual translation.
not: my power is “finished” in weakness – which is a bit hilarious.

Also, with the temple tax – is Jesus even “finished” paying the tax there?

So, now to the question, since you were so kind to share

Do you think, “finished” actually applies on the cross as is often translated?
And in what way / why?

-Thanks!

Very good thoughts there.

I merely used the word ‘finished’ for convenience in my former post, no deeper meaning implied.

 

[moondweller]

However, even if Jesus meant that ‘The work of redemption is done’, that does not mean that it was all finished on the cross; Jesus still needed to rise from the dead to truly finish His work of redemption!

Redemption was accomplished on the cross. It has to do with Christ’s sacrificial blood:1 Pet 1:18 "…knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, {the blood} of Christ."His work of redemption was accomplished, “finished,” on the cross. His blood was not shed while dead in the tomb. And His blood is not now being shed in His resurrected, glorified body in which He was raised to new life.

When He said “it is finished,” He meant the work for the world which required His sacrificial death, as the Lamb of God, is “FINISHED:” Redemption, Reconciliation and Propitiation.

Now when one believes in Christ he is completely and perfectly redeemed from the penalty of sin; completely and perfectly reconciled to God; and God’s offended holiness, because of sin, was completely and perfectly satisfied (propitiated) because of Christ’s sacrificial blood.

And it is through this “finished,” redemptive work of Christ on the cross that God, as a gift, justifies, once for all, those who put their faith in Christ:Rom 3:23-24 "…for all sinned (in Adam) and (continually) fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"And through all this the believer now has peace with God:Rom 4:25 - 5:2 "{He} who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."The sacrificial work Christ “finished” on the cross is applied to the sinner, in full, at the time of his belief in Christ. A sinner need only believe because the work was accomplished (“finished”) by Another.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Redemption was accomplished on the cross. It has to do with Christ’s sacrificial blood:1 Pet 1:18 "…knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, {the blood} of Christ.“His work of redemption was accomplished, "finished,” on the cross. His blood was not shed while dead in the tomb. And His blood is not now being shed in His resurrected, glorified body in which He was raised to new life.

When He said “it is finished,” He meant the work for the world which required His sacrificial death, as the Lamb of God, is “FINISHED:” Redemption, Reconciliation and Propitiation.

Oh, Goody! So I take it that you actually think he SAID “it is finished”?

Now when one believes in Christ he is completely and perfectly redeemed from the penalty of sin; completely and perfectly reconciled to God; and God’s offended holiness, because of sin, was completely and perfectly satisfied (propitiated) because of Christ’s sacrificial blood.

Hmmm — that seems to say the work is not completely “finished”. One still has to believe for the work to be “finished” in one’s self. The payment, therefore, is no good by itself?

And it is through this “finished,” redemptive work of Christ on the cross that God, as a gift, justifies, once for all, those who put their faith in Christ:Rom 3:23-24 "…for all sinned (in Adam) and (continually) fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"And through all this the believer now has peace with God:Rom 4:25 - 5:2 "{He} who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."The sacrificial work Christ “finished” on the cross is applied to the sinner, in full, at the time of his belief in Christ. A sinner need only believe because the work was accomplished (“finished”) by Another.

Huh?! – BUT there is nothing in what you said of above which mandates that christ actually said literally, “it is finished”. So, how do you come to the conclusion that he did based on what you have shared with us?

I have given some examples in the language itself which show that “it is finished” is probably more of a theological summary – than an accurate translation of what he said – as far as I know. Could you, perhaps, help me interpret what you have said, by expanding just a tad?

To you – is the physical blood shed on the physical cross non-perishable?
eg: it could not die?. if so, what does that mean? Is the blood, then, still on the ground at the cross as red as ever – undying? (even though that, I thought was his death)

But if that spilled blood is perishable, and has decomposed, then what un-perishable blood was shed on the cross – that he should say “it is finished” at that VERY point in time?

To phrase my question more precisely and scripturally:

Hebre 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Hebre 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; … .
Hebre 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
Hebre 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna …
Hebre 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat …

Hebre 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
Hebre 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Hebre 9:8 …
Hebre 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Hebre 9:10 …
Hebre 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, …
Hebre 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
…
Hebre 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God

 

[jean8]

Just recently I have heard that the Greek is translated, “it is paid in full” Perhaps retaining to the penalty for our sin being paid in full(for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life).

“Love drove Jesus to the cross. The cross drives me to love Jesus.”

phil,
I like your answer.
Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. The old system of sacrifice was over. He took all of our sins upon Himself for all time.

Praise the Lord,
jean8

 

[Lief_Erikson]

It’s worth pointing out that if the correct translation is “It is finished,” that definitely does not mean there is nothing more to be done but believe. Even if the word does indeed mean everything finished in the sense that Christ’s extinguishing our sins is completed, that does not negate the need for sanctification. We are forgiven, but roots of sinful behavior remain to be weeded out. We have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. But at the moment of those words, the sins Christ had carried were wiped out by the sacrifice of our Lord. Our God’s justice was entirely met, so for Christ, it was finished, if we will only accept His mercy. And accepting His mercy and forgiveness means not only believing but following. We must not only accept Christ’s grace- we must live in it through the process of sanctification until we are made perfect in Heaven.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

IBut at the moment of those words, the sins Christ had carried were wiped out by the sacrifice of our Lord. Our God’s justice was entirely met, so for Christ, it was finished, if we will only accept His mercy.

hypothetically?

And accepting His mercy and forgiveness means not only believing but following. We must not only accept Christ’s grace- we must live in it through the process of sanctification until we are made perfect in Heaven.

The work of God which still remains to be completed by us, wholly giving ourselves to his way.

KJV:
John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

…

John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

hypothetically?

What I mean is that at that moment, the price for all sins was fully paid. That is what I believe was meant by “it is finished.”

However, the fact that the price was fully paid at that moment does not mean we have been wholly transformed yet by that sacrifice. A transformation takes place in us at the moment of Baptism, for in those waters we are unified with Christ’s death and resurrection. However, that unification is not complete prior to the passing of our souls into Heaven.

We still have sin in us, so while the necessary sacrifice of Christ for sin was entirely “finished,” our participation in His sacrifice is not yet complete.

As long as we still have sin in our lives to be purged out, our participation in Christ’s sacrifice is still incomplete. Even though Christ’s sacrifice for sin was itself complete and finished. Our participation in Christ’s sacrifice is the process of sanctification. Sanctification is only completed when we reach Heaven, at which point our unity with Christ will be perfect.

The work of God which still remains to be completed by us, wholly giving ourselves to his way.

Exactly.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

What I mean is that at that moment, the price for all sins was fully paid. That is what I believe was meant by “it is finished.”

Thanks for the clarification. I don’t want to negate the notion that the crucifixion was “the” sacrifice which pays God – but I would like to go further into the idea of “payment” and the context of the cross.

For example, since it is physical blood drawing that is connected with salvation, I might be tempted, { as moondweller appears to come across } – that the blood itself is the payment. But then, I am immediately struck by the fact that the cross is NOT the first time blood was drawn.

I go back to the scourging – and if (hypothetically) Mel Gibson’s idea is a bit overblown and scourging really could be as clean as the miraculously non-bloody artwork at my church … I can go still further back – to the circumcision or Jesus birth. I’ll choose the former, since the birth/umbilical cord may not have been inflicted as a cut or wound (eg: maybe it was shriveled by salting – or a miracle occured protecting the virginity of Mary.)

But undoubtedly, Jesus bled at the circumcision which (like the cross’s similie/twin – the lamb’s sacrifice) was mandated by the Law.

At this circumcision – the Name is given to the child formally – he is “Jesus” which means “God saves”. So, I am tempted now to wonder if the “price” was not already paid at this earlier junction – and those who say “god save me” are really calling Jesus’ name. (Just an example of a possibility that comes to mind )

So, this “moment” you speak of – what is it about the prophecy / earlier scripture / etc. which makes the moment before death on the cross when Jesus could say it was “already” over with for himself, if not for us?
In what way – is it over.

However, the fact that the price was fully paid at that moment does not mean we have been wholly transformed yet by that sacrifice.

I am in total agreement with all else you have said – and I also think there may be deeper connections with “te-tele-s-tai” (τε-τελε-σ-ται) in your remark about how “in those waters we are unified with Christ’s death and resurrection. However, that unification is not complete prior to the passing of our souls into Heaven.”

I have said, perhaps on CAF some year(s) back – that I thought Jesus meant the “butchering” was finished – and even though I am tempted along with those who champion Scott Hahn’s interpretation to “assign” the object of this word to the drinking of wine at the passover – I am also, basically, severely shaken by my findings in the Greek (see my previous posts) – and would rather explore new thoughts on the subject if you have any. (if not, I have a few small humble suggestions.)

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thanks for the clarification. I don’t want to negate the notion that the crucifixion was “the” sacrifice which pays God – but I would like to go further into the idea of “payment” and the context of the cross.

For example, since it is physical blood drawing that is connected with salvation, I might be tempted, { as moondweller appears to come across } – that the blood itself is the payment. But then, I am immediately struck by the fact that the cross is NOT the first time blood was drawn.

I don’t think we can limit this to the blood, absolutely crucial though it is. The blows to Jesus’ spirit at this time were at least as crushing – being publicly rejected and humiliated by the vast majority of the Jewish people and the priests, being mocked by guards and his own people, and spat on, being denied or betrayed by his own disciples, his closest friends, being stripped naked in front of everyone (a terrible humiliation for Jewish men in that culture) and killed with criminals, and worst of all, feeling the wrath of His own Father because He bore the sins of the world (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?).

I read in my Rosary yesterday that it was at Gethsemane that Jesus took upon Himself the sins of all the world. So from that point on, His sufferings were the price for all sin. Prior to that point, we can’t say the same. And the blows He endured were deeply spiritual as well as physical. I personally would imagine that the terrible rending pain in His relationship with His Father may well have been the worst of the torment, because Christ is part of the Trinity.

The Trinity’s fellowship is completely beyond our understanding in its intimacy, obviously. So for the Father to turn on Christ in wrath to the point that Jesus cries out, “Why have you forsaken me?” would be an unimaginable pain to a member of the Trinity, the Father’s own Son.

About the traditional Passion of our Lord truly being the point in time at which the sin of the world was obliterated, rather than at an earlier point in Jesus’ life (or throughout His life), this is made clear in a few places in the Scripture. In John 12:27 He says, “Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say–‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour.” He came from Heaven for the upcoming hour of His suffering.

He also says, “Now is the judgment of the world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:31-32). This, again, speaks of the future event of the Passion completing the destruction of sin- in this case, specifically referring to the overthrow of the ruler of sin.

Then, in John 16:7, He says that if He did not die, the Holy Spirit would not come to humanity. This, again, refers to His Passion as a future event that saves the world.

In Luke 9:22, Jesus says, “The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” No part of this except the resurrection would Jesus be absolutely required to do in this way, if the debt for sin was already paid at circumcision.

I probably find more scriptures referring to this teaching, I feel sure. Anyway, I really strongly believe what my Rosary says, the traditional Christian view that all sins were paid for in the Passion.

When Jesus cried, “It is finished!”, he said that in the moment of death. Those were some of His very last words (John 19:30). Probably the only other words He spoke before dying were “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.” So He was in the moment of victory, of completion, when He spoke some of those very last words. The fact that He suffered for a few seconds or minutes longer afterward, which is a part of that final moment in which “It is finished!”, before breathing His last, does not refute this having been His cry of victory over sin.

I am in total agreement with all else you have said – and I also think there may be deeper connections with “te-tele-s-tai” (τε-τελε-σ-ται) in your remark about how “in those waters we are unified with Christ’s death and resurrection. However, that unification is not complete prior to the passing of our souls into Heaven.”

What is τε-τελε-σ-ται?

I have said, perhaps on CAF some year(s) back – that I thought Jesus meant the “butchering” was finished – and even though I am tempted along with those who champion Scott Hahn’s interpretation to “assign” the object of this word to the drinking of wine at the passover – I am also, basically, severely shaken by my findings in the Greek (see my previous posts) – and would rather explore new thoughts on the subject if you have any. (if not, I have a few small humble suggestions.)

I don’t know enough about the Greek to be of any use in that part of the discussion, unfortunately.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I don’t think we can limit this to the blood, absolutely crucial though it is…

Good, neither do I. And I do not deny that the intended humilation of the crowd, etc.
Though, when I remark about the hypothetical possibility of being “complete” at an earlier juncture, it is not because of the blood alone. Rather it is because several respected priests (a pope too, I believe) have made remarks along this line with respect to the incarnation. ( I don’t really want to diverge…)

However, with respect to St. John, I am less certain than you as to the apparent meaning of these passages you are quoting.

For example Psalm 22, which Jesus cries out (sang?) from the cross.
The bystanders do NOT interpret that psalm as suffering/despair but rather as a rebellious insistance on the mesianic role – eg: that the messiah would have “Elias/Elijah” hearld the true Christ – Ironically, St. John the Baptist (who denies a literal interpretation!) had already fulfilled that role.

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark 15:35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.

Even, reading Psalm 22 will verify that the psalm itself is piting a false/apparent abandoment against an invincible trust and hope. It is a psalm sung in triumph over hardship – it is a psalm wherin the person speaking decides , ultimately, that they are NOT truly abandoned. It is a psalm Jesus’ disciples desperately needed to hear.

Note also the Centurion – who rather than seeing a “crushed” man on the cross is surprised at the POWER with which Jesus cries out when he gives up the spirit. (ex-spires).

Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, …, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost {spirit/breath}, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God

The centurian was not likely to understand Hebrew.

I read in my Rosary yesterday that it was at Gethsemane that Jesus took upon Himself the sins of all the world. So from that point on, His sufferings were the price for all sin. …

I love scriptural rosaries – highly recommended! The piety based ones tend to be simplistic. P.S. I do respect your piety.

Prior to that point, we can’t say the same. And the blows He endured were deeply spiritual as well as physical. …

I am unable to imagine the torment of bearing mearly my grandfather’s sins all at one moment – let alone those of more than one person.
In fact, I do not think it humanly possible – but the Man Jesus, suffered.

OTOH — I am not absolutely sure why one can’t say the same before this point – since Jesus had already sacrificed by emptying himself to become one of us – in all things except sin. He was part of our family – and as for suffering – he was already grieved at the death of Lazarus – to name one thing.

So for the Father to turn on Christ in wrath to the point that Jesus cries out, “Why have you forsaken me?” would be an unimaginable pain to a member of the Trinity, the Father’s own Son.

True; but perhaps not in the way most people will read your comment.

About the traditional Passion of our Lord truly being the point in time … rather than at an earlier point in Jesus’ life (or throughout His life), this is made clear in a few places in the Scripture.

OK, I’m all ears.

In John 12:27 … He came from Heaven for the upcoming hour of His suffering.

I agree to this much, although qualified.

He also says, "Now is the judgment of the world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.

And elsewhere Jesus makes clear that the crucifixion is THE JUDGEMENT of the devil – but as to man, he did not come to judge.

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (John 12:31-32). This, again, speaks of the future event of the Passion completing the destruction of sin- in this case, specifically referring to the overthrow of the ruler of sin.

How is this different than Jesus drawing the crowds of Israel to himself Before the Crucifixion, except in scope? eg: He came first to the house of Israel ( the man who does evil to God / the Jacob who insists on wrestling for a blessing ALREADY his). Only upon Israel’s rejection – does his mission to All nations (men) become relatively necessary. eg: There is a difference between an absolute and a relative necessity.

Then, in John 16:7, He says that if He did not die, the Holy Spirit would not come to humanity. This, again, refers to His Passion as a future event that saves the world.

Or it refers to the equivalency of the Holy Spirit to himself in presence.
There is no need of a paraclete while Jesus the groom is on earth – Emmanuel – But the spirit “paraclete” comforter – comes once the groom is taken away – for pity.

But, I would still think that Jesus was able to save prior to the crucifixion – from what we have discussed so far. He is the face of heaven, after all. Something subtle going on.

In Luke 9:22, Jesus says, “The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” No part of this except the resurrection would Jesus be absolutely required to do in this way, if the debt for sin was already paid at circumcision.

Yes! He says this in reference to fulfillment of prophecy. However, “must” may be for other reasons than “payment” of sin. Eg: Jonas dies in the guts of the fish so that the Pagans in Nineveh may come to believe. But Jonas does not “pay” for their sins by his death, he merely convinces them of “the resurrection”. The Hope that death will not be their end.

I probably find more scriptures referring to this teaching, I feel sure. Anyway, I really strongly believe what my Rosary says, the traditional Christian view that all sins were paid for in the Passion.

And I do not deny the tradition – but I am asking for more precision and less ambiguousness about “why” or “how” a “payment” is being made.

The people of Jesus’ time did not have the advantage of piety handed down, nor of a distilled catechism – yet these events were grasped by them because it was spoken in a language they understood.

Those were some of His very last words (John 19:30). Probably the only other words He spoke before dying were “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.” So He was in the moment of victory, of completion, when He spoke some of those very last words.

I agree! – and it is that first word “Father” which is one of the things so intimately related to the (badly?) translated word “finished”.

The fact that He suffered for a few seconds or minutes longer afterward, which is a part of that final moment in which “It is finished!”, before breathing His last, does not refute this having been His cry of victory over sin.

Oy Veigh! If the word meant merelyYAHWEH “Daddy!” as spoken from the non-Jewish Greek dialect – it still would be a victory cry on behalf of Non-Israelites.

What is τε-τελε-σ-ται?

That is the word, in Greek, which is often translated “it is finished”.
However the word “it” does not exist next to it, nor does the normal Greek word for “is” – both of those are additions by the translator for the word. te-tele-s-tai (τε-τελε-σ-ται) itself stands in isolation.

The word is special in that it makes a noun (person, place, thing) out of a verb. It is called a perfect participle – the exact same kind of thing is spoken to Mary when the Angel says “hail, she-who-has-been-endowed-with-grace”. The bold being a SINGLE word…

This kind of word is an awkward thing in English, something like saying “I have the flown kite.”

The word, te-tele-s-tai (τε-τελε-σ-ται) has a strong relation to the verb for being in full existance – eg: similar to the name of God YHWH – but not in Hebrew, rather constructed in Greek – the language of “all” men being drawn / adopted.

I don’t know enough about the Greek to be of any use in that part of the discussion, unfortunately.

No problem. The things I want to grasp in relation to the word can – for the most part – be achieved in plain English.

What I think would be most useful, however, is to focus on the Idea of payment – which other Christians hold in common with us – where does the idea that God MUST be paid by a suffering servant come from? etc.

These are the sort of things I would suspect could justify translating “it is finished” as opposed to variants which I find preferable : eg: consummated.

 

[moondweller]

Huiou Theou:

Oh, Goody! So I take it that you actually think he SAID “it is finished”?

“Oh, Goody?” Of course I believe He said it:John 19:30 "Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

Hmmm — that seems to say the work is not completely “finished”. One still has to believe for the work to be “finished” in one’s self. The payment, therefore, is no good by itself?

Oh, the work was finished and it’s “good” by itself. But what you fail to understand is that all three Persons of the Godhead are involved with man’s salvation. It was the Father who sent the Son, the Son accomplished (“finished”) the work of redemption He was sent to do, the Holy Spirit appropriates, in full, His “finished” work to the sinner at the time of belief in Christ.

I have given some examples in the language itself which show that “it is finished” is probably more of a theological summary – than an accurate translation of what he said – as far as I know. Could you, perhaps, help me interpret what you have said, by expanding just a tad?

What’s to expand on, HT? The sacred text is quite simple and straightforward: “eipen tetelestai,” "He said, “It is finished.” There’s no mystery hidden behind some Greek nuance here.

But if that spilled blood is perishable, and has decomposed, then what un-perishable blood was shed on the cross – that he should say “it is finished” at that VERY point in time?

You’re on the edge of heresy, HT. Jesus came to give His life “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45). Peter is presenting the outstanding character of the price paid for their redemption. He connects it to nothing men would consider highly valuable in this world, which will all perish, but the infinitely precious (highly valued) blood of Christ who was offered in sacrifice.

There’s three words used in Scripture that vividly describe the work of redemption (which means to deliver by paying a price) finished by Christ on the cross through His blood:Agorazo: To buy in a market; from the word agora, “market.” Man is viewed as a slave sold to sin and under sentence of death, but subject to redemption by the purchase price of the blood of the Redeemer (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:4).

Exagorazo, to buy out of the market, that is, to purchase and remove from further sale (Gal. 3:13; 4:5; Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5). This speaks to the finality of Christ’s work of redemption (“it is finished”) which is appropriated to the sinner, in full, at the time of belief in Christ.

Lutroo, to loose and set free, never to return again (Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18). The noun form, lutrosis is used in Heb. 9:12 where it states: "But when Christ appeared {as} a high priest of the good things to come, {He entered} through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.The word “lutrosis” speaks to its eternality. More could be said but I think this is suffice to show that the English words redeem or redemption don’t do justice to what is communicated in the Greek. Those three Greek words support what Christ said regarding His redemptive work on the cross: “It is finished.”

When the Holy Spirit appropriates Christ’s finished work of redemption to the sinner upon belief in Him he is purchased, by Christ’s blood, out of the slave market of sin, never to return and set free. IOWs, because of Christ’s “finished” work, he is completely and perfectly redeemed (purchased). He is no longer his own, he belongs to God - never to be sold back again. This is the believer’s eternal security. “IT IS FINISHED.”

 

[Danno2281]

I second the recommendation to read the Scott Hahn article linked by Patrick 457. Also, remember, just because you discover one meaning of a verse, it does not mean you have exhausted all meanings of that verse. Scripture is much deeper and richer, and there could be several meanings to a passage!!

The Greek for this is “tetelestai” and it means “It is completed,” but the same word is used in Isaiah to mean “You have brought it to completion” and this is the final line of the psalm that Jesus quoted from the cross, “My God, my God,…” He has completed His identification with the suffering servant in the psalm and the triumph of God over sin has been accomplished. The victory is won.
In all liklihood, the other explanations are also worthy, perhaps even worthier, but this explanation satisfies me completely, and I found it in a most unlikely place: an appendix to a book on Judaism by Erich Fromm called “You Shall Be As Gods” wherein he quotes a priest named, I believe, Fr. LeFevre, for this explanation.

 

[Danno2281]

“Oh, Goody?” Of course I believe He said it:John 19:30 "Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.Oh, the work was finished and it’s “good” by itself. But what you fail to understand is that all three Persons of the Godhead are involved with man’s salvation. It was the Father who sent the Son, the Son accomplished (“finished”) the work of redemption He was sent to do, the Holy Spirit appropriates, in full, His “finished” work to the sinner at the time of belief in Christ.What’s to expand on, HT? The sacred text is quite simple and straightforward: “eipen tetelestai,” "He said, “It is finished.” There’s no mystery hidden behind some Greek nuance here.You’re on the edge of heresy, HT. Jesus came to give His life “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45). Peter is presenting the outstanding character of the price paid for their redemption. He connects it to nothing men would consider highly valuable in this world, which will all perish, but the infinitely precious (highly valued) blood of Christ who was offered in sacrifice.

There’s three words used in Scripture that vividly describe the work of redemption (which means to deliver by paying a price) finished by Christ on the cross through His blood:Agorazo: To buy in a market; from the word agora, “market.” Man is viewed as a slave sold to sin and under sentence of death, but subject to redemption by the purchase price of the blood of the Redeemer (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:4).

Exagorazo, to buy out of the market, that is, to purchase and remove from further sale (Gal. 3:13; 4:5; Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5). This speaks to the finality of Christ’s work of redemption (“it is finished”) which is appropriated to the sinner, in full, at the time of belief in Christ.

Lutroo, to loose and set free, never to return again (Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18). The noun form, lutrosis is used in Heb. 9:12 where it states: "But when Christ appeared {as} a high priest of the good things to come, {He entered} through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.The word “lutrosis” speaks to its eternality. More could be said but I think this is suffice to show that the English words redeem or redemption don’t do justice to what is communicated in the Greek. Those three Greek words support what Christ said regarding His redemptive work on the cross: “It is finished.”

When the Holy Spirit appropriates Christ’s finished work of redemption to the sinner upon belief in Him he is purchased, by Christ’s blood, out of the slave market of sin, never to return and set free. IOWs, because of Christ’s “finished” work, he is completely and perfectly redeemed (purchased). He is no longer his own, he belongs to God - never to be sold back again. This is the believer’s eternal security. “IT IS FINISHED.”

 

[Danno2281]

“Oh, Goody?” Of course I believe He said it:John 19:30 "Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.Oh, the work was finished and it’s “good” by itself. But what you fail to understand is that all three Persons of the Godhead are involved with man’s salvation. It was the Father who sent the Son, the Son accomplished (“finished”) the work of redemption He was sent to do, the Holy Spirit appropriates, in full, His “finished” work to the sinner at the time of belief in Christ.What’s to expand on, HT? The sacred text is quite simple and straightforward: “eipen tetelestai,” "He said, “It is finished.” There’s no mystery hidden behind some Greek nuance here.You’re on the edge of heresy, HT. Jesus came to give His life “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45). Peter is presenting the outstanding character of the price paid for their redemption. He connects it to nothing men would consider highly valuable in this world, which will all perish, but the infinitely precious (highly valued) blood of Christ who was offered in sacrifice.

There’s three words used in Scripture that vividly describe the work of redemption (which means to deliver by paying a price) finished by Christ on the cross through His blood:Agorazo: To buy in a market; from the word agora, “market.” Man is viewed as a slave sold to sin and under sentence of death, but subject to redemption by the purchase price of the blood of the Redeemer (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:4).

Exagorazo, to buy out of the market, that is, to purchase and remove from further sale (Gal. 3:13; 4:5; Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5). This speaks to the finality of Christ’s work of redemption (“it is finished”) which is appropriated to the sinner, in full, at the time of belief in Christ.

Lutroo, to loose and set free, never to return again (Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18). The noun form, lutrosis is used in Heb. 9:12 where it states: "But when Christ appeared {as} a high priest of the good things to come, {He entered} through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.The word “lutrosis” speaks to its eternality. More could be said but I think this is suffice to show that the English words redeem or redemption don’t do justice to what is communicated in the Greek. Those three Greek words support what Christ said regarding His redemptive work on the cross: “It is finished.”

When the Holy Spirit appropriates Christ’s finished work of redemption to the sinner upon belief in Him he is purchased, by Christ’s blood, out of the slave market of sin, never to return and set free. IOWs, because of Christ’s “finished” work, he is completely and perfectly redeemed (purchased). He is no longer his own, he belongs to God - never to be sold back again. This is the believer’s eternal security. “IT IS FINISHED.”

There is a danger here of reading these last lines as "once saved, always saved." That the freedom from slavery has been won does not prevent one from freely selling himself into bondage anew, as is clearly noted in Heb, 10, 29. Some who were sanctified will be condemned even though perfection in sanctification is available (v.14). Without the grace of perseverance, that perfection does not come about.