The End
Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. John 19:30 NASB
It is finished! – Finished! What does that mean? Is it simply an expression of the end of life? The last words before dying? Most theologians read a great deal more. They conclude that these words signify the completion of the mission of salvation. Yeshua has finished what he intended to do and what the Father sent him to do. The cross becomes that place where sin is finally overcome. “It is finished” is a declaration that the Suffering Servant wins. He has not faltered. He has not failed. He has been obedient to the last. And a new world begins.
But that’s not really the case, is it? The cross without the resurrection is just another martyr’s death. Without the resurrection, as Paul notes, we are the most miserable of all human beings. We don’t have anything more than a memorialized, dead leader. We might as well join those who once believed that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the Messiah. What really matters is what happens after “It is finished!”
Actually, the Greek term John uses to capture Yeshua’s words already hints at something more. The root is téleo. In this verse, it is the perfect, passive indicative. The “perfect” tense emphasizes the present, or ongoing result of a completed action. So the verb tense itself tells us that it isn’t finished. Whatever has been completed is, in fact, only the beginning of something else. Necessary, but not over.
Then there’s the “passive” voice of this word. That it is passive seems a bit strange. After all, “passive” means that someone or something other than the subject is the active force. It’s not, “John hit the ball,” but rather “John was hit by the ball.” The subject does not initiate the action. The subject receives the action. This seems odd, doesn’t it? Yeshua announces that something other than himself has finished the job. He is simply the one acted upon. It takes some consideration to realize that in his view his life has been simply the vehicle of God’s purpose. He actually hasn’t been in charge at all. He has been acted through, acted upon. And now that stage is done.
Perhaps it helps to recognize the full word group in Greek.
télos [end, goal], teléō [to carry out, complete], epiteléō [to carry out, complete], synteléo [to complete, fulfill], syntéleia [completion, fulfillment], pantelḗs [complete, full], téleios [complete, perfect], teleiótēs [completeness, perfection], teleióō [to complete, perfect], teleíōsis [completeness, perfection], teleiōtḗs [perfecter][1]
Note that télos has several possible meanings and connotations:
- télos first means “achievement,” “fulfillment,” “execution,” “success,” then “power,” “official power,” and “office.”
- Another meaning is “completion,” “perfection,” “final step,” “supreme stage,” “crown,” “goal,” “maturity,” “result,” “conclusion,” “end,” “cessation.” Adverbially the meaning is “finally,” “fully,” “totally,” “unceasingly.”
- télos can also mean “obligation.”
- Cultically it denotes an “offering” to the gods or a “celebration” of the “mysteries” or the “fulfillment” of sacrifices.
- Finally a télos may be a “detachment” or “group.”[2]
It’s also worth noting that in Jewish thought, télos is associated with apocalyptic end times. “In 4 Esdras the ‘end’ is a culminating time, fixed by God, which embraces great distress, the coming of the Messiah, the judgment, transformation, and salvation. The ‘end’ of this world stands in antithesis to the beginning of the next.”[3] Perhaps Yeshua’s final word struck terror in the Jews who witnessed the crucifixion. Was he announcing the end of the world from the cross? It took decades of theological reflection to re-interpret this proleptic possibility.
But none of this mattered at all without the resurrection.
So, the end is not the end. What is finished isn’t finished. What God began he continues to do through His servant, but nothing really stops at the cross. In fact, the cross is an anticipation of something else, a dividing point in a continuing journey. It’s not so much about the man on the cross but about the power that drove him there and that continued to manifest itself in him after he died. The cross is crucial, but it’s only a pause in the plan.
Topical Index: cross, it is finished, end, tetelestia, telos, John 19:30
[1]Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(1161). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
We read the Bible as if it were written from God’s perspective: out of God’s paradigm (perfect, of course). But the Bible was written from within the perspective of not only the writers through which it was inspired, but TO the perspective of the listeners/readers. We know that most of the Tanakh as well as the Gospels and even the Letters were mostly passed along by hearing. The Tanakh was probably largely passed along orally, long before it was written, and even after it was written was memorized. The Gospels were arranged so as to be easily memorized; the Letters were passed along and read aloud, too, and all of this material was quoted aloud in the synagogues and homes, as most of the population was illiterate. Hearing was how people received the Word.
The Ten Commands, too, were not given from the perspective of a world of no sin: they were given largely in the negative: from the perspective of someone already entrapped within those forbidden behaviors. “Thou shalt not” would not have made a lot of sense to someone who had never committed adultery. In the Garden, the Bible was a couple of verses long, and it was given orally “Yea, has God said…”. Of course, in the Garden it was because people were already expressing God’s character (His law) unimpeded through them: they were already not lying, killing, lusting, etc. God’s communications to us have always been from our perspective. Why we would assume it was given from His, I have not been able to figure out!
Why would not the life of His Son also have been given to us adapted to our ability to understand what He was doing here? There is no way for us to understand salvation from God’s perspective! It is hard enough to try to grasp even the rudiments of it from ours! Most of what Yeshua did on earth is a mystery, still. Why did He come in the form He did? Why did He live and die and rise again the way He did? The paradigm He came in was meticulously arranged long before: encoded in the patterns formalized in the Tabernacle and cultic rituals was a picture of salvation so that when that Salvation came (of course, like all the gifts of God, that gift was an action) and acted that salvation out, like a Greek tragedy, we would recognize it by the pattern. But the Jews did not like the picture they had been given. They did not like the picture of a suffering servant: they wanted a conquering king. So they altered the paradigm, and, because of that, so many of them (not all!) could not recognize what they, as a nation, had been formed to birth.
Am I committing their mistake? Am I altering the paradigm in which I ‘want’ to receive truth? Am I, too, trying to ‘force’ God to speak to me on my terms? YHVH went to a whole lot of trouble so that when Messiah came, His people would not be confused or even reactive against Him. They should not have been confused as to what He meant when He spoke those words “It is finished”. We, today, should not be confused, either. Perhaps the entire exercise of Yeshua on earth was yet one more pattern of what has been transpiring in the heavenlies since the dawn of Creation and the Fall. Perhaps Yeshua lived the life He did so that we could see, acted out in His life, what salvation looked like from our perspective. We think it all hinges on what we can see, but what if what we can see is just a picture – a play acted out on a stage – of what God has always been up to? We think the Cross is the end all be all, but what if it is just a postcard of much larger realities of which we have no idea?
What if we don’t really understand salvation at all (and aren’t expected to): what if what Yeshua did was merely to get us to sign on to it: to viscerally agree with it? All we have to do is agree with it, after all. So many people I know have lost their salvation in the process of thinking they had to understand it or, worse, thinking that they did! They wandered away from that visceral faith into the dangerous ground of their heads and never emerged again. May the Spirit of God give me the faith of a little child, and may I stay there, is my prayer.
Hello, we can be reminded that the word of God is powerful for the pulling down of strongholds, and is sharper than any two-edged sword, it is versus like these, in the concepts that they produce, that tell me that the word is doing something I am also told that Yeshua is the Living Word, the word became flesh and dwelt Among Us. When we keep our eyes in the word. Our eyes we’ll see Yeshua. Note the changing from me personal to our eyes and we keep. So many times it is read that the word is personal to an individual. That is true but my dear old dad taught me that you can also be plural, and talking to a group. So if God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow oh, there is always a bridge connecting people to what he has done, to what he is doing, to what he will do. In the future. Always keep my eyes on the foundation, like rowing a boat across a lake. We Roll facing backward looking at the shoreline, if we keep our eyes on a fixed position. We will reach our destination, on the other side. Where the promise is fulfilled. Thank you for letting me interact with this group. I have shared it with many people. As I will today also. Not as much as today’s portion, but it certainly is sugar for the oatmeal.?
Loved this…”but what if it is a postcard of much larger realities of which we have no idea?” I think this is right on.
Laurita,
I am saving your most recent words into my bulging file of “Best of Laurita.” But I balked at your statement that “So many people I know have lost their salvation in the process of thinking they had to understand it or, worse, thinking that they did! They wandered away from that visceral faith into the dangerous ground of their heads and never emerged again.” “Lost their salvation” is a strong statement which seems to ensconce you firmly into the Seat of Judgment. Do you mean lost eternally or temporarily? From my personal perspective, as one who resides in the ever expanding dark matter of my mind, I hope it is not an eternal lost, but a kind of temporary disorientation. Hopefully, I will be reoriented to true North upon my demise and I will emerge from my head unscathed and will be resurrected to a sound mind, body and spirit. Two of my favorite non- biblical quotes for my condition and hope are:
“Not all who wander are lost”
(Tolkien)
and
“Nothing good gets away.” (Steinbeck)
I am hanging in there with you, brother. The specific folks I have in mind ‘think’ they have salvation figured out, so therefore they are no longer questioning. There is slippery, slippery ground between those who think they are saved, but are not, and those who are thrashing about, but are still firmly in the grasp of their Saviour because they are not relying on themselves, but on Him. It is clear that we can lose our salvation by free choice, but those are the eyes I see shuttered: the light is on but nobody is cooking in the kitchen. If I think I ‘have it all together’ that is probably the best indicator that I don’t. The closest I get to Him is when I am the farthest from all the comforts of self. Well, that’s as far as I have gotten! I should rest only in Him: never in me. Salvation is all His work, but I have to work to stay there, otherwise I am presuming on the grace of God. That work consists of denying self and learning to let go and let Him continue to do it all in me. I am the reins but the hands must be His on those reins of my self. There is nothing in my natural born self that corresponds to anything like this!
Great quote! Salvation is all His work, but I have to work to stay there. It is important to define what is meant by “salvation”. Is it the all encompassing “fire insurance” of so much doctrinal theology? Is it the beginning of an ongoing process of “working out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? Hebraic thinking is not either/or, it is either/and as Skip so eloquently laid out. “Salvation” in and of itself was/is never the goal. It is simply the beginning of a much larger picture. Simply believing or agreeing is the problem. If the Israelites in Egypt simply believed or agreed with YHVH about putting the blood on the doors and did not actually DO it, their firstborn would have died as well. Thank you Laurita for pointing out that the visceral, deep, internal involvement is about entering into covenant, about becoming covenant people by keeping covenant, not just intellectualizing about it.
Sherri, great case in point about the action of applying blood to the door. Incidentally, a great many Egyptians who were convinced by that time that what Moses was saying about YHVH was true put the blood on their doors, too. We can deduce this by the “mixed multitude” that were convicted that Egypt had the wrong gods. They naturally followed the God who had the power to keep them safe. I am convinced that God saves anyone who has the faith to give Him the room to. 1Tim. 4:10 points out that salvation is for all (even though not all take advantage of it, of course). Paul talks about “the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe”. I think this tells us that some will be saved even though they believe all the wrong stuff, because conscience is a heart thing, not a head thing. I think conscience is a gift to all, and if we follow it, and do not deny it, we can be saved by sorrow for known sin no matter who we are or what we believe, if it is the best we know. The Holy Spirit works wherever He is not resisted.
I was musing this morning about dialectics: people who make up fights by splitting the truth. Both sides are “known by their fruit”, however, and I have noticed that both sides will tend to bear the SAME fruit. I have noticed that the artificial dialectic between folks who think salvation includes works (such as RCC and all false religions, and a lot (not all!) of Judaism, too) – and others! – vs. those who think you get it in spite of works (greasy grace) are, alike, suffering from a profound focus on self as the locus point of salvation. I think both are missing the truth that salvation is admittance into a correct relationship with God: one that involves cooperation with the Holy Spirit “working” in us: a joint endeavor is the whole point of being saved. Saved to do what? Have the Spirit of God living in us so as to love through us. Both sides of that dialectic, I have noticed, are still alone, by themselves, without realizing that salvation returns us to cooperation with heaven (sanctification).
True salvation means that we have traded wrong motivations “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” 1Tim. 4:1,2 for the right motivation: love (which is God living in us again) returning us to right relations with all through His relationship with us. This is the fruit James talked about, for it takes continual faith to let go and let God work “His will and pleasure” in us. May I “work out my own salvation with fear and trembling” by continuing to let go and let Him today!
Skip,
With all due respect, you are over-interpreting the meaning of the passive voice as well as misunderstanding and consequently misstating the implied subject of the 3rd person singular in John 19:30. It is not as though Jesus had no input into the events of his life, his mission. In fact, John the Gospel writer is at pains to show that Jesus was actively involved as compared to the Synoptic Gospels (18:11, e.g.).
Importantly, you’ve overlooked the same verb root used twice just two verses earlier (19:28), with one of these in the exact same tense-form: After this, knowing that now everything had been completed, Jesus said—so that Scripture would be fulfilled—“I’m thirsty.” This first instance, had been completed is the same perfect passive indicative as 19:30 (tetelestai), the second is the aorist passive subjunctive (would be fulfilled). It is because Jesus was aware that “now everything had been completed” that he purposefully stated (active voice), “I thirst” (the most literal rendering) in order for Scripture to be fulfilled. Thus, 19:30 (and 19:28) should be understood the mission had been/is completed/finished/accomplished. That is, the implied subject in tetelestai is Jesus’ mission—His mission in his earthly, human vessel, pre-Resurrection. This mission was jointly accomplished by Father and Son, the Son acting in obedience to His Father.
The Greek perfect tense should be understood as akin to the English perfect tense: A past action with then-contemporaneous relevancy. To automatically impose that the Greek perfect means that the action continues in perpetuity is to over-interpret. It is the verb’s lexis, the verb root that will determine continuing relevance. The verb perfect/complete/finish, by its very definition, implies that it cannot be un-perfected, un-completed, or un-finished. Thus, naturally, this state of accomplishment continues on.
To explain further, let’s say Juan builds a car from scratch and immediately upon putting on the final touches exclaims, “It is finished!” Later, the car is demolished beyond repair in a motor vehicle mishap. The state of completion of the car is still in effect because it cannot be unfinished, even though the car is now totally inoperable. The car is in a new state (inoperable) but the task of initially building the car remains finished (it cannot be un-finished).
Let’s go even further. In 1 Cor 15:4 Paul uses the Greek perfect tense for was raised/arose on the third day. The voice is middle/passive, and the English versions are somewhat split between “was raised” (passive) and “arose” (middle). The middle is a bit difficult to explain, so suffice for now to say that the subject is somehow involved in the action of the verb. More importantly for our purposes here is the use of perfect tense-form. This state of Jesus’ ‘risen-ness’ cannot be undone because it’s impossible to undo. Again, this is because of the verb’s lexis, root. And this state of ‘risen-ness’ does not change the state of ‘finished-ness’ of the mission of the cross. That is, one state does not eclipse the other. The mission of the cross is still ‘finished’. And Jesus ‘was raised’/’arose’ on the third day and He cannot be ‘un-raised’. That He is now seated beside the Father on the Throne does not negate this fact.
For the record, the word tetelestai is from the verb root teleō not telos, which is a related noun form. I’m unsure how you can make the claim that teleō (or telos) is “associated with end times in Jewish thought” by using 4 Esdras. This pseudepigraphic book is only extant in Latin with very few Greek manuscripts extant and no surviving Hebrew/Aramaic (though it was most likely Semitic originally). Moreover, in the Gospel of John the word relating to end times is eschatos, not teleō. The Gospel writer always phrases this tȩ̄ eschatȩ̄ hēmera̧, “the last day”.
For the record, my article does say the verb is teleo. For the record, the claim about 4 Esdras was a citation from TDNT. Take up your criticism with that author. For the record, I never made any claim about eschatos. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. And finally, for the record, my argument is that “It is finished” doesn’t mean “It is over and done with.” There is more to come.
Yes, I saw that you stated, “The root is téleo” in the 3rd paragraph (yet I’ll now note it’s actually teléō—the difference between an omicron [o] and an omega [ō], a not uncommon mistake—as is correctly rendered as the 2nd item in the 6th paragraph). However, my issue is with your statement “It’s also worth noting that in Jewish thought, telos is associated with apocalyptic end times”. The way this TW focuses on telos gives the impression that this is the most important form, even over against teleō. But it is not unusual for the semantic range between a particular word’s noun form and its verb form to vary, with one or the other broader in meaning. For this reason one should stick with the associated form (in this case the verb over against the noun) for comparisons. Secondly, even putting aside the issue with the 4 Esdras claim relative to telos in the TDNT, it is not good practice to compare words from different literature (pseudepigrapha to NT)—unless one can demonstrate that they are in fact used similarly. The issue here then is how (a) John’s Gospel uses teléō, (b) how the remaining Johannine literature uses the term, and, expanding further, (c) how the NT uses the term.
Finally, though you did not use the word eschatos in this TW, you did bring in telos as relevant to end times; and, since eschatos is the word consistently used for end times in the Johannine literature, and the NT generally, and that telos is not used in this manner by and large in the NT, I’m not so sure this is a viable way to commence an argument. In fact, as I’m sure you know, it is this word, eschatos, from which we get the theological term for end times: eschatology.
In the entire Johannine literature, telos is used only once—in John 13:1. This verse is clearly related to the events leading up to and including the cross. Comparatively, John’s Gospel uses eschatos (in the phrase “the last day”) seven times.
Craig, for the record, I appreciate your insight and contributions pertaining to the Greek text and manuscripts. (I only hope to attain better skills in this aspect of insight into what God has chosen to preserve for us to know and understand him.)
But I am so extremely thankful that all that pertains to life and godliness can be understood and realized with sufficient insight to know that he is God, I am not, and I need him to fulfill (see, here I don’t begin to know how to parse τελειόω for this)…I need him to fulfill my purpose for his intentions, if it is to happen at all.
It might have been less confusing if He had said any of the following,
“I am finished.”
“We are finished.”
“They are finished.”
But, He didn’t, so…
“TAG, YOU are IT.”
Yeahua was in on it with the Father since the
beginning. “Nevertheless, not my will but thine be
done” Yeshua uttered as he willfully completed
the Father’s assignment on the cross.
And why? Man needed redemption from sin.
And man needed to know how it happened.
The eternal plan of “the lamb who was slain from
the creation of the world” needed to take place on
the world stage. The first phase of the divine plan
was “finished” as Yeshua said on the cross. BUT that
was just the beginning!
Three days later NEW life began — as the Father’s plan
illuminated the universe with the glorious resurrection of
His Son. Now, the word had to spread. “Go and make disciples
of all nations” Yeshua encouraged his apostles “teaching them
to obey everything I have commanded you.”
That part of the plan is now in progress, as the Father works
through our lives, gifted with the new life of His Son in us who
believe.
Stay tuned.
Amen!
As Paul said of his own experience, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” Yeshua’s death anticipates the joy that was set before him, taking of no account the shame, enduring death, even death on a tree (cross).
A curtain was rent at the crucifixion…but the curtain doesn’t come down on the stage of this present age until it is raised for one remaining act. Those standing beside the sea of glass mingled with fire with harps have yet to sing, “The Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb”! (Both servants of God… But Moses alone was a δοῦλος; Yeshua was the son, the firstborn).
It takes some consideration for us to realize and embrace that our lives, too, are simply the vehicle for God’s purposes – and that we aren’t actually in charge at all. Reckoning ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ doesn’t come easily… it necessarily involves experiences of death, as well as those of genuine life. But, praise be to God, it doesn’t stop there!
“…I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in [me] will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
Hallelujah!
There has been a lot of discussion about the Greek word “tetelestai” (Strong 5055) which ends the verse in John 19:30. Yet we know that Jesus would not have been speaking Greek while hanging on the cross. So what did he say in Hebrew/Aramaic? Is it not likely that he said “Asah!” (Strong 6213)? I read an article about a lawyer negotiating a contract with another lawyer in Israel. After the two argued back and forth for a protracted time one of the lawyers then pounded his fist on the table and exclaimed “asah” … Done/finished! When we review Psalm 22 which Jesus quoted on the cross verse one “My God…” and given that the psalm is a graphic description of crucifixion, is it not likely that Jesus concluded his suffering on the cross at the time of his death by uttering the last word of the last verse of that same psalm, namely “asah”…. He (Yahweh Father) has done/finished it!”