Why did JESUS say Teltelesthai before resurrection?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gmsod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gmsod

Guest
Why didn’t he say it before he died and before the resurrection? What was “it” referring to? Thanks

GOD bless!
 
I went to go to my trusty Haydock Bible online…

But the website is gone!

Nooooooo… Now I need to save up $150 to buy a Haydock Bible!

My Didache Bible says “having completed the ‘cup’ he was to drink and fulfilling the Father’s plans, Christ died on the Cross…”

Not very helpful.
 
What was his mission? If it was finished and he had not yet died or risen from the dead than was his mission only to preach and suffer? I believe his mission included all of this I am simply having trouble seeing why he said it beforehand?
 
Gmsod said:
am simply having trouble seeing why he said it beforehand?
Click to expand...
I think the issue is you are reading this passage in a literalistic manner.

Read the V-II document “Dei Verbum” for some guidance as to how you should interpret the Scriptures.

They are not written in a strictly literalistic chronological fashion, and you will run into a multitude of issues if you read them as such.
 
Because He was about to die after suffering and dying I’d guess.

You have to see the Catholic belief on the Crucifixion. It’s that His work was so meritorious that it was enough to be meritorious for us.
His natural life’s suffering and teaching was over.

His Work after the Resurrection is not over. He still is King of the Universe. He still has yet to fully come.
 
Clarification – Jesus didn’t say “Tetelesthai”; he said something in Aramaic that was translated as “Tetelesthai” by the Gospel writer.

(Not that it matters all that much.)

D
 
Gmsod said:
Why didn’t he say it before he died and before the resurrection? What was “it” referring to? Thanks
Click to expand...
That’s a huge question!

I’ve heard Protestant preachers teaching that “τετέλεσται” was the inscription that Greek-speaking bankers used, to indicate that a debt had been paid off. I’ve never seen anyone substantiate that claim, so I can’t really speak to whether it’s true or not.

Nevertheless, that claim fits well with the Protestant theology of “forensic justification” and “penal substitution”. This theology claims that God the Father is less a loving father and more a precise accountant. It says that God punished Jesus (who was innocent of sin) and did not punish us (who are guilty of sin). It says that God extracted the very last iota of debt from the sufferings of Jesus, and then God – as a precise accountant – said, “yep, all done; you’ve paid the debt in full… humanity is now off the hook.”)

As Dr David Anders often says on the EWTN program “Called to Communion”, that makes God a horrible tyrant: he punishes the innocent and acquits the guilty. Penal substitution is not what the Catholic Church teaches!

And so, the Catholic Church would reject the claim that the τετέλεσται of Christ means “paid in full.” (Heck… even if that’s the way Greek accountants used to use the word, it doesn’t mean that this is what Christ was saying on the cross!)

(Incidentally, the Catholic Church tends to put forward the “satisfaction” theory of salvation: Jesus – who told us “there is no greater love than this – that a person should lay down his life for his friends” – put those words into action. He literally gave up his life so that we might have life. And God the Father, recognizing this perfect and complete sacrifice of love, responded in love toward humanity, forgiving us and giving us access to heaven.)

So… what did Jesus mean by τετέλεσται? First off, there’s no “it” in that sentence. In English, you need an explicit subject, so we have to insert the “it” there. However, in Greek, it’s a single word sentence. It’s important to look at the grammar of that sentence, then:
  • the ‘tense’ of the verb is perfect. Perfect tense describes a completed action whose effects continue on.
  • the ‘voice’ of the verb is middle or passive (by virtue of the way it’s written). It can be tricky to make the determination of which it is, but in this case, ‘passive’ appears to be the correct interpretation.
So… what does that verb mean? Well, ‘telos’ really speaks to reaching a conclusion. However, it doesn’t just mean that the end of an event has occurred (e.g., the clock reaches “0:00” in a football game). Rather, it speaks to a goal or purpose having been reached. (In a weird kinda way, I picture Andres Cantor shouting, “Goooooooooooaaaaaaaalllllllllll!”)

So… if I were forced to give a description of what τετέλεσται means in this verse, it might be, “the purpose for which I became Incarnate – that is, to offer my life for the salvation of humanity – has now been achieved, and its effects are manifest in creation.”
 
The word has only an implied subject. If you find it puzzling what “it” refers to, the Greek can help you out, simply because you can ignore the implied subject. The word is focusing on COMPLETION. It doesn’t direct us to focus on the thing that is complete, as if he had said, “houtos tetelestai”.
 
It very well may just have referred to the “hour.” His “passion.” What was initiated at the Last Supper. It doesn’t need to mean all of his work was complete.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Scott Hahn explains to what the “It” refers.

Fourth Cup talk By Scott Hahn,
Listen or Download
Original Talk, My favorite version



LightHouse CD


Text
See
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html

On the web page above you must shrink the width of the browser down to two thirds size to get rid of Blue Bar.

Hunt for the Fourth Cup
Scott Hahn September 01, 1991


New Book
The Fourth Cup: Unveiling the Mystery of the Last Supper and the Cross Hardcover – February 20, 2018


https://www.amazon.com/dp/1524758795/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Different Version by [Mike Fulmer]
Text

http://www.the4thcup.com/

http://www.the4thcup.com/download/attachment/15090

PDF Handout of Old and New Testament Relevant Verses
http://www.the4thcup.com/download/attachment/1205

http://www.the4thcup.com/4th-cup-downloads.html

John
 
Gorgias said:
That’s a huge question!

I’ve heard Protestant preachers teaching that “τετέλεσται” was the inscription that Greek-speaking bankers used, to indicate that a debt had been paid off. I’ve never seen anyone substantiate that claim, so I can’t really speak to whether it’s true or not.

Nevertheless, that claim fits well with the Protestant theology of “forensic justification” and “penal substitution”. This theology claims that God the Father is less a loving father and more a precise accountant. It says that God punished Jesus (who was innocent of sin) and did not punish us (who are guilty of sin). It says that God extracted the very last iota of debt from the sufferings of Jesus, and then God – as a precise accountant – said, “yep, all done; you’ve paid the debt in full… humanity is now off the hook.”)

As Dr David Anders often says on the EWTN program “Called to Communion”, that makes God a horrible tyrant: he punishes the innocent and acquits the guilty. Penal substitution is not what the Catholic Church teaches!

And so, the Catholic Church would reject the claim that the τετέλεσται of Christ means “paid in full.” (Heck… even if that’s the way Greek accountants used to use the word, it doesn’t mean that this is what Christ was saying on the cross!)
Click to expand...
I’m confused Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

1John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

These all say Jesus died for our sins as a substitute. Same as the OT sacrifices of the lamb without spot or blemish being offered to cover the sins of the people IE Passover. Was God unjust to require the death of an innocent animal to cover the sins of the people?
 
jericho777 said:
These all say Jesus died for our sins as a substitute.
Click to expand...
As a ‘substitute’, yes. (Satisfaction theory is a theory of substitutionary atonement.) But, it’s not ‘penal substitution’.
Same as the OT sacrifices of the lamb without spot or blemish being offered to cover the sins of the people IE Passover.
Click to expand...
Not quite the same, because Jesus offered himself. The lamb didn’t jump into the arms of Aaron exclaiming, “choose me! let me die for the sins of the people!” 😉
Was God unjust to require the death of an innocent animal to cover the sins of the people?
Click to expand...
No, because the animal was property, belonging to the people. It was a means of giving up something they had ‘earned’, by the sweat of their brow, and by God’s providence, and therefore, it was something they were giving back to God. If they had been sacrificing people, on the other hand, it would’ve been a different story!
 
Very true Jesus offered Himself for sacrifice in accordance with the Father’s will and a lamb cannot consent to that. None the less Jesus is identified in scripture as the Passover Lamb and possessing the qualities of a lamb. He is the Lamb without spot or blemish.

Ownership of the lamb is not the question but requiring that an innocent life is taken and its blood must be shed because without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins. Jesus paid the price which is penal in nature. Otherwise why would blood have to be shed and the life taken?

I would be interested in any scripture references to support your position.
 
jericho777 said:
Very true Jesus offered Himself for sacrifice in accordance with the Father’s will and a lamb cannot consent to that. None the less Jesus is identified in scripture as the Passover Lamb and possessing the qualities of a lamb. He is the Lamb without spot or blemish.

Ownership of the lamb is not the question but requiring that an innocent life is taken and its blood must be shed because without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins. Jesus paid the price which is penal in nature. Otherwise why would blood have to be shed and the life taken?

I would be interested in any scripture references to support your position.
Click to expand...
Jesus multi-tasked. Pointers from Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, Jesus:
  1. Was the new Moses (Deu 18:15-18)
  2. Initiated the new Exodus (Luke 9:31). Gentiles around the world are converted from idolaters to worship the Abrahamic God.
  3. Initiated the new covenant (Jer 31:31-33, 1 Cor 11:25)
  4. was the new Passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7-8)
  5. was the High Priest (Hebrews 5:10)
  6. became the new Manna from heaven (John 6 discourse) to be eaten daily per Our Father prayer. OT backdrop Exodus 16.
  7. Was the sacrifice/ransom
The Mosaic exodus covenant was sealed in blood. By means of the blood ritual, Israel became God’s family. The New Covenant was sealed by the blood of the new Passover lamb, Jesus.

Sacrifice of the Passover lamb is not completed until consumed. Jesus in his John 6 discourse descriptively tell us how to eat his body and blood. The Last Supper illustrates how Jesus , the Bread of Life, share his all with us. Only members of the covenant family of God can partake of it. As in the Mosaic Exodus, we are commanded to remember/memorialize this. Parallel to the Lord’s Angel of Death passing over over the Israelites doors marked with the blood of the Passover lamb, , Jesus as the new Passover Lamb bore our sins (of death) Mat 26:28.

This is an illuminating book. Too many gems in there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top