The most natural and historical interpretation of the text suggests that “it is finished” refers to the accomplishment of all the details that were required prior to Christ’s death, for once these details are completed, Jesus utters, “it is finished” and gives up the spirit and dies. Jesus desires to accomplish all the specific prophecies of the Old Testament. The previous use of τετελεσται in verse 28, quoted above, makes this clear. Fulfilment of Scripture is also evident in John 19:24 (cf. Luke 24:25-27). Hence, the primary contextual referent for “it is finished” is the fulfilment of Scripture. In addition, Jesus desires to secure the care of His mother, Mary, and thus gives custody of her to John the apostle at the foot of the cross (John 19:25-27). Once these things are accomplished, Jesus can then die. Hence, the scriptural prophecies concerning His suffering and death are finished, but the text does not discuss the nature of His sacrifice, as such is something the text does not even begin to discuss, let alone settle.
Indeed, his book, Ancient Christian Gospels, New Testament scholar Helmut Koester argued that τετελεσαι in John 19:30 refers to the fulfilment of Scripture in light of the use of τετελεσαι elsewhere in v. 28:
John 19:28 retains, at the same time, the reference to the fulfillment of Scripture (Jesus . . . , that the Scripture be completed, said, “I thirst,” cf.: when Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is completed,” John 19:30. (Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development [London: SCM Press, 1990], 230)
In a footnote for the above, Koester wrote:
In the extant text of John, this remark has a much more pregnant significance: Jesus has completed all the works he was sent to do (cf. Bultmann, Gospel of John, 675). But the tradition or source of the Gospel of John probably expressed by this phrase is that the fulfillment of the scripture had been accomplished. (Ibid., 230 n. 1)
Notwithstanding, even allowing for John 19:30 to have a meaning relating to salvation, it still does not support the common Protestant interpretation of this verse. Consider the following:
In the theology of the apostle Paul, this common Protestant interpretation of John 19:30 is anti-biblical. According to the apostle Paul, the Father raised Christ
for our justification:
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for (δια here has a causal sense [i.e. for the sake of]) our justification (Rom 4:25)
On the salvific importance of the resurrection of Jesus, Reformed apologist Tony Costa, critiquing the likes of Leon Morris and other Reformed authors, wrote the following:
Paul usually couples the death of Jesus with his resurrection (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3-4), but here in Rom 10:9 he focuses primarily on his resurrection, for as Paul asserts in 1 Cor 15:14, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then all Christian faith is vain and futile, which includes the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death . . . Following Rom 10:9 where Paul lays down the confession of Jesus as Lord and the belief in his resurrection from the dead, Paul goes on to introduce his points in Rom 10:10-13 with the preposition γαρ beginning in each of the verses, which is intended in these cases to denote a reason or explanation of the preceding statement. Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 386-88. The preposition γαρ of course never stands first at the beginning of a sentence. (Tony Costa, Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters [Studies in Biblical Literature vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013], p. 375 notes 107 and 109)
Morris is therefore incorrect to maintain that the gospel of God’s Son, which Paul announces (Rom 1:9), “centers on Christ’s atoning act. Without that there would be no gospel.” Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 58. On the contrary, without the resurrection of Jesus the gospel would be rendered superfluous and empty (1 Cor 15:12-20). The atoning act of Jesus is only validated by the resurrection, for it is the resurrection of Jesus itself that gives the cross any soteriological significance. (Ibid., 319-20, n. 39)
One conservative Reformed theologian, W.E. Best, wrote the following on the "finished" and "unfinished" aspects of Christ's salvific work:
Salvation is finished and unfinished. The Lord’s statement on the cross in John 19:30, “It is finished,” means that it was completed, executed, concluded, finished, and accomplished. What was accomplished? Jesus Christ finished the work of offering Himself for the sins of the elect, the purpose for which God sent Him into the world: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4). God had sent Christ into the world not to be a teacher, although He taught. He did not send Him to be a healer, although He healed. God sent His Son to give Himself, an offering for sin. He sent Him to stand in the place of those the Father had given the Son in the covenant of redemption. The Lord Jesus Christ accomplished that work.
Believers stand between Christ’s two statements: “It is finished” and “It is done” (John 19:30; Rev. 21:6). The latter statement does not occur until all things are made new (Rev. 21:5). We stand between the finished work of Calvary and making all things new.
The finished work of Christ is typified by (1) the covering of coats of skins (Gen. 3:21), (2) Abel’s more excellent offering (Gen. 4:4), (3) Noah’s sheltering ark (Heb. 11:7), (4) the offering of Isaac (Heb. 11:17), (5) the blood of the passover lamb (Ex. 12:1-14), (6) the life-giving fountain (Ex. 17:6), and (7) the serpent of brass (Num. 21:9).
The finished and unfinished works of Jesus Christ include the following things: (1) His work as Redeemer is finished, but His work as Restorer will remain unfinished until the perfection of every elect person. (2) Christ’s work as Saviour at the cross is finished, but His work as Sustainer is unfinished. Those who have been reconciled to Christ are saved or sustained by the living Christ (Rom. 5:10). “Saved” is added to “saved.” (3) His work as Atoner is finished, but His work as Advocate is unfinished. Provision is made for the sinning believer (I John 2:1). (4) Christ’s work as Sanctifier is both finished and unfinished. The elect are positionally sanctified at regeneration, progressively sanctified in their Christian lives, and shall be ultimately sanctified in the presence of Jesus Christ. (5) The Saviour’s work of putting away sin “from” the believer is finished, but His work of putting away sin from “within” the believer is unfinished. Sin was judicially put away from the elect in the death of Jesus Christ. Sin is put away from within the believer by Christ’s living at the right hand of the Father and the Holy Spirit’s living within the believer. (6) Christ’s dying to destroy sin’s penalty in the elect of God is finished, but His living to destroy sin’s power over him is unfinished. (W.E. Best, The Savior’s Definite Redemption: Studies in Isaiah 53 [Houston: W.E. Best Book Missionary Trust, 1982], 18-19)
Note also the following from N.T. Wright (Anglican) and Raymond E. Brown (Catholic) on John 19:30:
So Jesus is executed as the ‘king of the Jews’. All four gospels report that this phrase was written out and nailed above his head on the cross. Just as condemned criminals in early modern Britain used to carry a placard telling the onlookers of their crime, so the Romans would put such a notice on the cross, as a warning to others. The gospel writers, of course, see the sign over Jesus’ head as heavily ironic, charged with meaning of which the Roman governor and his soldiers were ignorant—just as John sees Caiaphas’s statement about Jesus dying for the people (11.50). Pilate’s words point, despite his cynical intention, to the reality: the ‘king of the Jews’ must complete his scripturally rooted vocation by giving his life for his people, for the world, expressing and embodying the saving, healing, sovereign love of Israel’s God, the world’s creator. He should die, say the Jewish leaders, because ‘he made himself the son of God’ (19.7), just ass in Mark and elsewhere the bystanders at the cross mock Jesus and challenge him to come down from the cross if he is the son of God. But John’s readers and Mark’s readers know by now that it is because he is son of God that Jesus must go to the cross, that he must stay there, that he must drink the cup to the dregs. And he must do so not in order to rescue people from this world for a faraway heaven, but in order that God’s kingdom may be established on earth as in heaven.
That is why, in John’s account, the last words of Jesus are reported as being, ‘It’s all done’ (19.30), in other words, ‘It’s accomplished’, or ‘It’s completed.’ The echo is of Genesis: at the end of the sixth day, God completed all the work that he had done. The point was not to rescue people from creation, but to rescue creation itself. With the death of Jesus, that work is complete. Now, and only now, and only in this way can new creation come about. (Tom Wright, Simply Jesus: Who he was, what he did, why it matters [London: SPCK, 2011] 179-180, italics in original, bold added for emphasis)
The cry “It is finished” (vs. 30), which constitutes Jesus’ last words in John, has often been contrasted with the agonized “My God, my word, why have you forsaken me?” which constitutes Jesus’ last words in Mark/Matthew. (John is closer in tone, at least, to the last words reported by Luke: “Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit.”) . . . If “It is finished” is a victory cry, the victory it heralds is that of obediently fulfilling the Father’s will. It is similar to the “It is done” of Rev xvi 17, uttered from the throne of God and of the Lamb when the seventh angel pours out the final bowl of God’s wrath. What God has decreed has been accomplished.
The very last words of vs. 30 are so phrased as to suggest another theme in Johannine theology. Although Matthew and Luke also describe Jesus’ death in terms of his yielding up his life spirit. John seems to play upon the idea that Jesus handed over the (Holy) Spirit to those at the foot of the cross, in particular, to hiss smother who symbolizes the Church or new people of God and to the Beloved Disciple who symbolizes the Christian. In vii 39 John affirmed that those who believed in Jesus were to receive the Spirit once Jesus had been glorified, and so it would not be inappropriate that at this climactic moment in the hour of glorification there would be a symbolic reference to the giving of the Spirit. I such an interpretation of “he handed over the spirit” has any plausibility, we would stress that this symbolic reference is evocative and proleptic, reminding the reader of the ultimate purpose for which Jesus has been lifted up on the cross. In Johannine thought the actual giving of the Spirit does not come now but in xx 22 after the resurrection. (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi) [AB 29A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970], 930, 931, italics in original)
Thomas Torrance (1913-2007) was a well-respected Protestant theologian, an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland, and was professor of Christian dogmatics at New College, Edinburgh for twenty-seven years. He wrote the following which captures the internal inconsistencies within some Protestant (especially Reformed/Calvinistic) understandings of the justification vis-à-vis the resurrection of Jesus and the nature of the atonement:
A purely forensic doctrine of justification bypasses the resurrection, and is empty without an active sharing in Christ’s righteousness.
When, therefore, the Protestant doctrine of justification is formulated only in terms of forensic ‘imputation’ of righteousness or the non-imputation of sins in such a way as to avoid saying that to justify is to make righteous, it is the resurrection which is being bypassed. If we think of justification only in light of the crucifixion as non-imputation of sins because of what Christ has borne for our sakes, then we have mutilated it severely. No doubt we can fill it out with more positive content by relating it to the incarnate life of Christ and to his active obedience, that is, fill it out with his positive divine-human righteousness—and that would be right, for then justification becomes not only the non-imputation of sins but the clothing of the sinner with the righteousness of Christ. Nevertheless, that would still be empty and unreal, merely a judicial transaction, unless the doctrine of justification bears in its heart a relation of real union with Christ. Apart from such a union with him through the power of his Spirit, as Calvin puts it, Christ would remain, as it were, inert or idle [Institute 3.1.1]. We require an active relation to Christ as our righteousness, an active and an actual sharing in his righteousness. This is possible only through the resurrection—when we approach justification in this light we see that it is a creative event in which our regeneration or renewal is already included within it. (Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, ed. Robert T. Walker [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009], 224)
Elsewhere, (Ibid., 127-28), Torrance wrote:
The resurrection is the ground of justification
Had Christ succumbed to the death of the cross, that would only have indicated that his union of God and man was not real, that it had not actually been achieved, and therefore that the ethical or legal relation, with its gap between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ and its order of distance from God, still stood valid and therefore that every moral or other objection in regard to it was valid. Had Christ succumbed to the death of the cross, its substitutionary sacrifice would have been the most immoral deed in all the universe and, and the only doctrine that would be got out if would be the pagan idea of humanity placating an angry god by human sacrifice. That is partly why Paul lays such stress upon the resurrection as the ground of justification. He speaks of Jesus being put to death for our trespasses and raised for out justification [Rom 4.25], and asks rhetorically, ‘who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead’? [Rom 8.34] It is because of this resurrection out of the death of the cross that God and humanity have been reconciled in Christ, and therefore that our life has been set on a wholly new basis. (Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, ed. Robert T. Talker [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009], 127-28)
Finally, commenting on Rom 4:25 (cf. 2 Cor 5:14-15), Catholic theologian F.X. Durwell noted:
That the death of Christ also plays a leading part in Paul’s soteriology, no-one ever doubted. We find the importance of the two events balanced in a text which contrasts their two roles in the strictest parallelism: “It is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto justice, but also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe in him that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead, who was delivered up for [δια] our sins and rose again for [δια] our justification” (Rom. iv.23-5.)
The distinction for the Apostle makes between two aspects of the one salvation is curious. And many attempts have been made to dispose of the difficulties it creates and restore the monopoly of the Redemption to Christ’s death alone . . . For Christians, according to St. Paul, Christ’s resurrection is not merely a motive of credibility, a miracle that elicits faith; it is the object of their faith: “If thou . . . believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. x. 9.) And if this faith has power to save us, surely that power must come from its object.
Considering the effectiveness the parallel phrase attributes to Christ’s death, and since the context does not allow of a restrictive interpretation, we must admit a direct connection between the Resurrection and our justification. But since the death of Jesus is of itself sufficient to expiate sin, some exegetes have fixed upon the one relationship which in no way robs the death of its monopoly, the lowest form of causality—exemplar causality. The death of Christ, they say, is an image of our death to sin, the Resurrection if the exemplar of our justification. Some see only an exemplar causality in the opening words, “He was delivered up for our sins”; others destroy the balance of the sentence by letting our Lord’s death bear all the weight of our salvation, while allowing his resurrection no more than the value of an example. That Christ in his glory is an example is frequently stated by the Apostle. (Rom. vi. 4; I Cor. xv. 47-9). But it is a very arbitrary exegesis that sees no more than that here. Christ’s death makes expiation for sin, declares the text; it is not also fully serious in saying that the Resurrection effects our justification? If we are to be faithful to the parallelism of the statement, we must place our Lord’s resurrection beside his death as fully effective for our salvation . . . to this major text we may add another, not at first very striking but most significant: “The charity of Christ presseth us: judging this, not if one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all; that they also, who live, may not now live for themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.” (2 Cor. v. 14-15.) The death and resurrection of Jesus are both working towards our salvation. Each plays a different part in it. If Christ is dead, we who are united to Christ are also dead. This death signifies the end of our life according to the flesh (16ff.) We now have no right to live for ourselves, for this would be to live according to the flesh. Henceforward we shall live for him—and here the Apostle suddenly brings in a new element, Christ’s resurrection—who died and rose again.
This new lie must be linked with the resurrection of Christ, for the Apostle cannot mention one without the other. Our death stands alongside his death; therefore when our new life is spoken o, his resurrection must be, too. Paul leaves it to us to understand his train of thought: “And if one is raised up or all to a new life, we are all raised to that life.” Dead to ourselves in his death, brought to life by his resurrection, we live from now on for him who, for our salvation, died and rose again. (F.X. Durrwell, The Resurrection: A Biblical Study [2d ed.; trans. Rosemary Sheed; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960], 25, 26-28)
Furthermore, John’s use of the verb τελεω (the verb τετελεσται is derived from), and the related verb τελειοω, as used in the Johannine literature (the Gospel of John; 1-3 John; book of Revelation) never has such a penal/forensic meaning which is necessitated by the historical Protestant understanding of John 19:30
Other instances of τελεω in the Johannine corpus outside of John 19:28, 30:
But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. (Rev 10:7)
And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. (Rev 11:7)
And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is ended . . . and the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power, and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. (Rev 15:1, 8) What is interesting is that v. 1 speaks of the wrath of God having “ended” in a time period post-dating John 19:30 and Christ uttering the phrase, “it is done.” If a Protestant apologist wishes to be consistent, they would have to argue that fulfilment will be when the Father’s wrath is propitiated, notwithstanding their claim that John 19:30, in their view, teaches such happened when Christ uttered his final words!
For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. (Rev 17:17)
And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season . . . But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection . . . When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. (Rev 20:3, 5, 7)
Usages of τελειοω in the Johannine literature
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. (John 5:36)
I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. (John 17:4) The form of τελειοω in this verse is an active aorist participle τελειωσας, used with respect to Christ "having accomplished" (NASB) what the Father sent him to do. Using the approach Protestants often do to John 19:30, this "proves" that everything for salvation was "done and dusted" (reverently speaking) at the moment Christ offered his High Priestly prayer and God's wrath against sin was completely propitiated then and there. Of course, such is eisegesis.
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:23) τελειοω in this verse is meant in the sense of moral perfection, not in a forensic sense.
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. (John 19:28) In this verse, τελειοω is used alongside τετελεσται, but it clearly has a non-forensic meaning, being used to convey the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy.
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. (1 John 2:5)
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us . . . Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:12, 17-18). The use of τελειοω in this pericope as well as 1 John 2:5 (cf. John 17:23) refutes the forensic understanding of this verb and its cognates. Here, John speaks of the completion/perfection of love, but love is a human volition, but in the Protestant understanding of the atonement and justification, it is a legal transaction, similar to a modern will, in contradistinction to love (as well as faith) which is a non-legal and timeless virtue.
If such a model of the atonement (penal substitution), as understood by historical Protestantism, is the "biblical" model, why does Christ have to intercede at all (cf. Rom 8:34)? In this model, the (past, present, sins and future) of the elect are forensically imputed to Christ, resulting in Jesus paying the legal penalty for their sins, However, this would render any intercession by Christ superfluous if Calvinism is correct.
Note the following from Protestant theologian, Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), p. 249 n. 13, which captures how unbiblical Reformed soteriology truly is on this issue:
To understand the heavenly intercession of the Son on our behalf as the propitiation of the Father, as Michael [a Reformed apologist the author is responding to] does, generates a significant problem of internal coherence for penal substitution. According to penal substitution, the primary purpose and effect of the death of Jesus was to propitiate the wrath of God on account of the sins of humanity. As it is written elsewhere, because Christ is “a priest forever” in heaven, he “always lives to make intercession” and is thus “able for all time to save those who approach God through him” (Heb 7:24-25). Heavenly intercession on our behalf is thus the ongoing vocation of the risen and ascended Christ. So, if the purpose and effect of the Son's intercession is to propitiate the Father's wrath, then the Son is continually doing in heaven at the throne what was to have been fully accomplished on earth at the cross. The cross would thus seem to have been ineffective, or at least incomplete, in accomplishing its primary purpose of saving humanity from divine wrath. Michael's interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2, although given in defense of penal substitution, effectively undermines it.
Note the following from Swiss theologian and magisterial Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli that speaks of the propitiatory nature, not just of Christ’s death, but his intercession in heaven (1484-1531):
For as He [Christ] offered Himself once on the cross and again to the Father in heaven, so He won and obtained remission of sins and joy of everlasting happiness. (Macauley Jackson, trans. The Latin works of Huldreich Zwingli [2 vols.], 2:276).
A modern Protestant apologist also shows how easy it is for advocates of penal substitution to be inconsistent on this point (in the following case, a Calvinistic critique of the Catholic Mass):
He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption. Christ presents Himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of His people. His work of intercession, then, is based on His work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father . . . the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the fact that in His death He has taken away the sins of God’s people, and therefore, by presenting His finished work on Calvary before the Father, He assures the application of the benefits of His death to those for whom He intercedes. (James R. White, The Fatal Flaw [1990], pp. 133-134).
This text poses great problems for Reformed theology, as do so many pericopes in the Old and New Testament when read in light of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.
Why is this significant? In Reformed theology, when an individual is justified, it is an external, forensic event wherein the alien righteousness of Jesus is imputed to the individual, and one’s past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven. However, the New Testament clearly indicates that believer’s sins are to be atoned for even after their initial conversion. Consider the following text:
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation (Greek: ιλασμος [atoning sacrifice]) for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)
In this passage, Jesus is presented as a still-present source of the atonement of sins (this passage is discussed in more depth below).
Another significant text is Heb 2:17:
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
There are a number of interesting things when one examines this verse. Firstly, there are two “purpose clauses” in this verse; the first (“that he might be a merciful high priest”) is the Greek ινα clause; the second is the use of the Greek preposition εις which means “into” or “with a goal towards” and this is coupled with the present infinitive form of the verb ιλασκομαι “to make atonement” (ιλασκεσθαι), and this present “making of atonement” is “for the sins of the people” (τας αμαρτιας του λαου). The author of Hebrews views Christ’s on-going office of heavenly intercessor as one that allows for the continuing appeasement of the Father to win the forgiveness of sins committed by believers, sins that were not forgiven at one’s conversion. In other words, this verse presents Jesus as the heavenly high priest who, even at present, makes atonement for sins; this is alien to many theologies that think of one's forgiveness as being once-for-all. The author of Hebrews says Jesus makes atonement for sins on an ongoing basis. If ones’ then-future sins were already atoned for when one appropriated Jesus (esp. if one holds to imputed righteousness), and their justification can never be lost, this verse and its theology is nonsensical. However, Christ's ongoing work as High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle is ongoing in reference to our own sins. Thus, the present infinitive form in Heb 2:17 conclusively demonstrates the continuing need for the application of Christ's work for our own salvation. Protestants are in the unenviable position of having to advocate a soteriology that is at odds with the witness of biblical exegesis.
Paul Ellingworth, a Protestant, wrote the following about Heb 2:17 and the use of ιλασκεσθαι, further showing that Jesus is a present propitiation (cf. 1 John 2:1-2):
The present verse suggests that he “became” high priest in order that he might continuously deal (ἱλάσκεσθαι present) with the people’s sins . . . Ἱλάσκεσθαι (cf. ἱλαστήριον, 9:5*, “mercy-seat”) is used in the NT only here and in Lk. 18:13**, where ἱλάσθητι means “be merciful” (cf. Est. 4:17h LXX; Dn. Th. 9:19). The present ἱλάσκεσθαι denotes continuous activity by one who remains high priest εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (5:6 = Ps. 110[LXX109]:4) following his exaltation. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 186, 188, emphasis added)
This fits perfectly well with what we find in the Expositor's Greek New Testament (5 vols.), ed. Nicoll Robertson, where Protestant scholar Marcus Dods wrote the following on Heb 2:17:
εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι, “for the purpose of making propitiation,” εἰς indicating the special purpose to be served by Christ’s becoming Priest. ἱλάσκομαι (ἱλάσκω is not met with), from ἵλαος, Attic ἵλεως “propitious,” “merciful,” means “I render propitious to myself”. In the classics it is followed by the accusative of the person propitiated, sometimes of the anger felt. In the LXX it occurs twelve times, thrice as the translation of כִּפֵּר. The only instance in which it is followed by an accusative of the sin, as here, is Psalms 64 (65):3, τὰς ἀσεβείας ἡμῶν σὺ ἱλάσῃ. In the N.T., besides the present passage, it only occurs in Luke 18:13, in the passive form ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, cf. 2 Kings 5:18. The compound formἐξιλάσκομαι, although it does not occur in N.T., is more frequently used in the LXX than the simple verb, and from its construction something may be learnt. As in profane Greek, it is followed by an accusative of the person propitiated, as in Genesis 32:20, where Jacob says of Esau ἐξιλάσομαι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώροις κ.τ.λ.; Zechariah 7:2, ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸν Κύριον, and Zechariah 8:22, τὸ πρόσωπον Κυρίου, also Matthew 1:9. It is however also followed by an accusative of the thing on account of which propitiation is needed or which requires by some rite or process to be rendered acceptable to God, as in Sir 3:3; Sir 3:30; Sir 5:6; Sir 20:28, etc., where it is followed by ἀδικίαν, and ἁμαρτίας; and in Leviticus 16:16; Leviticus 16:20; Leviticus 16:33, where it is followed by τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ θυσιαστήριον, and in Ezekiel 45:20 by τὸν οἶκον. At least thirty-two times in Leviticus alone it is followed by περί, defining the persons for whom propitiation is made, περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξιλάσεται ὁ ἱερεύς or περὶ πάσης συναγωγῆς, or περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν. In this usage there is apparent a transition from the idea of propitiating God (which still survives in the passive ἱλάσθητι) to the idea of exerting some influence on that which was offensive to God and which must be removed or cleansed in order to complete entrance into His favour. In the present passage it is τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ which stand in the way of the full expression of God’s favour, and upon those therefore the propitiatory influence of Christ is to be exerted. In what manner precisely this is to be accomplished is not yet said. “The present infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι must be noticed. The one (eternal) act of Christ (c. x. 12–14) is here regarded in its continuous present application to men (cf. c. Hebrews 2:1-2).” (Marcus Dods, "The Epistle to the Hebrews" in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. The Expositor's Greek Testament, volume 4 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], 269-70)
On the topic of the "ground of justification," a common theological concept brought up by Reformed theologians, and the intercessory work of Christ, Robert Sungenis noted the following in response to 19th-century theologian Charles Hodge:
[With respect to Rom 8:34] the main question that arises in this case, is why Christians need an “intercessor” for their sins if indeed, as Protestant theology teaches, that Christ has ‘once-for-all paid for their past, present or future sins’? The whole notion of Christ being an “intercessor” for sin to appease God’s wrath should be superfluous in Protestant theology. We grant, as Protestants teach, that a sinning Christian can be “out of fellowship” with God and thus needs to be restored, but as we have already seen in 2 Corinthians 5-6, 13, the “intercession of Christ “ and the “reconciliation of The Christian” are not limited to “fellowship” but include the very salvation of the Christian. In light of this, there are two important points concerning the “intercession” of Christ. First, as used in Rm 8:33-34, Christ’s intercession is in the context of justification. In Rm 8:33 Paul says, “It is God who justifies” and then says in the next sentence that “Christ Jesus who died…is at the right hand of God interceding for us.” This is why Paul can say in the next verse, “Who can separate us from the love of Christ?” Because Christ is continually interceding for us and justifying us before the Father, nothing can separate us from God, unless, of course, Christ stops interceding and the justification is taken away. This occurs when we sin mortally.
Second, when the Scripture speaks elsewhere of Christ’s intercession it is in the context of final salvation. Hb 7:25 states: “Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” According to the grammar, Paul is explaining to us that because of Christ’s continual intercession to God, he is able to complete the salvation of those who come to God.[433] Simply put, the reason they can have their salvation completed is that Christ makes continual intercession for them. For Hodge, this presents a dilemma. On the one hand, he says the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is sufficient to remit all past, present, and futures sins of the Christian. Yet Hodge admits above that is illogical to remit the punishment for sins that have not yet been committed. We will recall that his solution to this problem was to say that God did “not to deal with the Christian according to his transgressions” rather than to say the sins are forgiven ahead of time.
Thus, we would have to conclude concerning Hodge’s view that the continual intercession of Christ is for the very purpose of maintaining the promise of God not to deal with the sins of the Christian as he normally would have, i.e., with death. But we ask, why must the intercession be performed? Why is the forensic, once-for-all imputation of justification insufficient to maintain that promise of God itself? If the single act of imputation put in place the “irreversible justification,” does this not make the intercession of Christ, in the context of sin, superfluous? Other Protestants cannot help Hodge by saying that the intercession of Christ is only for the purpose of “fellowship with God.” The context of Hb 7:25 and Rm 8:33-34 will not allow such a dimension. These contexts deal with justification and final salvation, not “fellowship,” per se. Once again, Hodges’ dilemma vindicates the Catholic position. Christ’s continual intercession is necessary because we continually need God’s grace to forgive our sin, especially if we fall into mortal sin. Hodge was right in one sense – we do appease an angry God against sin through the intercession of Christ, but it happens every day of our lives. Christ “begins” our salvation at baptism, but he “completes” it in his role as intercessor. As some translations say, “he saves us to the uttermost.” (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 348-49)
The note for the above reads as follows:
The word “completely” is from the Greek εἰς τὸ παντελὲς which is used again only in Lk 13:11. There it refers to a woman not being able to lift herself up completely. The lexical definition can vary between “complete, perfect, fully” and “forever, for all time.” The phrase “because he always lives to intercede” is εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν , in which the preposition governs the infinitive with the article to denote purpose. The word “come” is the Greek present participle προσερχομένους which refers to those presently approaching. (Ibid., 348 n. 433)
Let us return to 1 John 2:1-2. The ESV renders the verse as follows (emphasis added):
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
In this verse, John is speaking to Christian believers of his time and states that not only was/is Christ an atoning sacrifice (ιλασμος) for their then-past sins, but is presently an atoning sacrifice for their then-future sins. Why is this problematic? In Reformed soteriology, when an individual is pronounced “justified,” all their past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven, a “blanket forgiveness,” if you will. However, the text is pretty clear that a true believer will not only sin, but such sins will have to be repented of, and forgiven by Jesus Christ. This is brought out when one looks at the Greek:
The phrase, “we have an advocate” translates παράκλητον ἔχομεν, where the present text of “to have” εχω coupled with the Greek term παρακλητος, which refers to an advocate, an individual who pleads another's cause in their place, which is related to the intercessory work of Jesus Christ being tied into the perseverance of Christians and their ultimate salvation, something we find in a host of biblical texts, such as:
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Rom 8:33-34)
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)
We see a very potent example of this in Rev 5:6:
And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
In this passage, John sees a vision of the heavenly tabernacle, where Jesus is presented as being a Lamb. The term “as it had been slain” translates the Greek term ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, where the term ως (like/as) coupled with perfect passive participle of the verb σφαζω (to slay), therefore, depicting Jesus, in His post-resurrection state, in a sacrificial role, paralleling the slaughter of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, Jesus is not sitting, but standing, indicating activity on his behalf (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1-3), namely, His intercessory work before God the Father, applying the benefits of His atoning sacrifice for His people until He comes in glory; further, as we learn in vv.8-9, the potency of the prayers offered by the disembodied elders have their basis on this intercessory work—similarly, the potency of our prayers have power due to the prayers and intercessory work of Christ, our mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).
The term “he is the propitiation for our sins” translates the Greek αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The ESV and other translations are correct in rendering Christ being a present atoning sacrifice (“propitiation”), as the verb “to be” (ειμι) is in the present tense (εστιν [“he is”]). This is commensurate with texts such as Heb 2:17 (discussed above), where the author of Hebrews presents Jesus as a present-propitiation, not merely a past-propitiation, for the sins of true believers.
1 John 1:5-10 confirms the focus on the present sins of the Christian that need forgiveness; verse 6 speaks of those who claim to have fellowship and yet walk in darkness (i.e. are engaged in unrepentant sin). In verse 7, the author provides the remedy to such, viz. the blood of Jesus Christ "that cleanseth us from all sin," allowing restoration of fellowship. This is reinforced in vv.8 and 10 that denies the claim that a Christian is without sin, while v. 9 encourages the sinner to repent, upon which God will "forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The pronouns used indicate that the author included himself in such warnings and as one who needs to engage in repentance and have his then-future sins forgiven, too.
When read exegetically, 1 John 2:1-2 shows that (1) Christ is a present propitiation for Christians; (2) the then-future sins of a Christian are not forgiven at justification, and, as a result, (3) repentance is not a once-off concept as some (not all) Evangelicals posit.
John McLeod Campbell, a 19th-century Reformed theologian who was critical of much of Penal Substitution, captured the extent and meaning of the atonement when he wrote:
And He is the propitiation: for propitiation is not a thing which He has accomplished and on which we are thrown back on as a past fact. He is the propitiation. Propitiation for us sinners,--reconciliation to God,--oneness with God abides in Christ. When we sin, and so separate ourselves from God, if we would return and not continue in sin we must remember this. For it is in this view that the Apostle, writing to us “that we sin not,” reminds us of the propitiation—not a work of Christ, but the living Christ Himself: and so he proceeds—“Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments;” the direct effect of knowing Christ the propitiation for sin being keeping Christ’s commandments. And because of the power to keep Christ’s commandments, which is ours in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, the Apostle, in words similar to those which he had just used with reference to the claim to fellowship with God who is light, adds, “He that saith I know him,” that is Christ the propitiation for our sins, “and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected,”—the end of this gift of love accomplished. “Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked.” (John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life [2d ed.: London: Macmillan and Co., 1867], 197-98; emphasis in original).
One possible "counter" could be an appeal to Heb 10:10-14, another "proof-text" for such a view on the atonement. The Greek (with key terms in bold), followed by the KJV, reads:
ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ. 11Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκεν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, 12 οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, 13 τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. 14 μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
In the view of many Evangelicals, this pericope “proves” that the believer cannot fall from their salvation and that salvation is a once-for-all event (being tied into one of the many theologies of “eternal security” [e.g. Perseverance of the Saints within Reformed soteriology]).
First, Hebrews 10:14 is a somewhat obscure grammatical choice of words by the writer.
It should first be noted that Heb 10:14 (“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”) is ambiguous in the Greek.
The verse contains the present participle τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους (“those being sanctified”). This present participle could be related to the perfect tense of τετελείωκεν (“he has perfected”). If this is the case, the sacrifice of Christ is indeed once-for-all (εφαπαξ), but is in a progressive relationship to us, that is, at least with respect to sanctification, Christ’s sacrifice does not give us a “blanket” forgiveness of one’s past, present, and then-future sins; instead, it gives us a perfect forgiveness of one’s past and present sins, but it is not applied all at once to us, as we know elsewhere from the New Testament that we must seek forgiveness of sins we commit post-conversion (e.g. 1 John 2:1-2). Consider the following from Moulton:
Another ambiguous case may be quoted from Heb 10:14: is τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους timeless, “the objects of sanctification,” or iterative, “those who from time to time receive sanctification,” or purely durative, “those who are in process of sanctification”? The last, involving a suggestive contrast with the perfect τετελείωκεν—telling (like the unique ἐστὲ σεσῳσμένοι of Eph 2:5. 8) of a work which is finished on its Author’s side, but progressively realised by its objects,—brings the tense into relation with the recurrent οἱ σῳζόμενοι and οἱ ἀπολλύμενοι, in which durative action is conspicuous. The examples will suffice to teach the importance of caution. (James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of the New Testament: Prolegomena [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2006], 127-28)
I. Howard Marshall wrote the following about Heb 10:14, which is succinct and insightful:
It is the perfection which Christ gives to believers. By His one sacrifices He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). He bestows upon men His own status as an obedient Son of God and with Him they receive glory from the God whose purpose it is to bring many sons to glory. (I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away [Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1969], 156)
In the endnote for this passage, Marshall also noted:
This means that the sacrifice of Christ is eternal in its validity, not that the perfecting of believers is a once-for-all act incapable of being undone. Perfection here is analogous to justification in Paul. It is not a change of nature which cannot (in theory at least) be reversed. (Ibid., 250 n. 62)
Commenting on Heb 10:10-14, Albert Vanhoye wrote:
Concerning the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, the author not only speaks here of purification and forgiveness as being primary; he also expresses the concept of “making perfect”. The Greek word is <<τελειων>>. In the Pentateuch, the word was adopted exclusively for speaking of the consecration of the High Priest. In Hebrew, one uses a slightly strange expression to express the idea of this consecration, namely: mille yad, or literally “to fill the hands”. When a High Priest was consecrated, his hands were filled. The expression derives from the fact that during the inaugurating ceremony of the sacrificial ministry, the priest received in his hands a part of the victim to be brought to the altar, and so his “hands were filed”. The Greek translators of the Septuagint did not want to translate this expression literally; presumably they considered it too material, so instead they used the verb <<τελειων>>: “to make perfect”. In this way, they made the expression more suitable for religious acceptance. The High Priest was called, “He who has been made perfect”, <<τετελειωμενος>> (Lv 21:10; Cf. Hb 7:28).
The author of the Letter to the Hebrews believes that it is right to speak of perfection with regard to priestly consecration because the priest must be made perfect if he is to enter into relationship with God. However, the author observes that the consecration of the ancient High Priest did not correspond to this law; it did not make him perfect because it consisted in external rites which could transform no one interiorly (cf. Hb 7:11; 19; 28). Christ, however, was truly “made perfect”, not by means of inefficacious external rites but by means of existential sufferings that were offered with love (cf. Hb 2:10; 5:8-9). Furthermore, the unique offering of Christ had a double effect, that is, it had a twofold efficacy, namely: it conferred perfection on Christ and it conferred perfection on us (Hb 5:9; 10:14). In his passion and resurrection, Christ was at the same time both active and passive. He received perfection and he communicated it to us—and this perfection is a priestly perfection. As I explained, it is a perfection of the relationship of filial docility to God and fraternal compassion with us.
The statement: “By a single offering, he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified”, contains something surprising. On the one hand, it indicates something that has already been achieved. Christ has made perfect <<τελειωσεν>>. The Greek verb indicates a reality that has already been communicated. On the other hand, the phrase continues to indicate a reality that is becoming, that is, a dynamism: he has made perfect those whom he is sanctifying, <<τους ‘αγιαζομενως>>, that is, those who have not received the sanctification, albeit, progressively. It is a work in progress. These are the two aspects of our religious situation that result from Christ’s oblation. On the part of Christ, all has now been achieved: he has made us perfect. On our part, all is in a process of realization. Our sanctification continues to be achieved little by little. The author has had the audacity to place these two statements together altogether they seem to be contrasting. However, they really do correspond to our Christian situation. In this regard, theologians speak of an “already accomplished” and of a “not yet”. (Cardinal Albert Vanhoye, Christ Our High Priest: Spiritual Exercises with Pope Benedict XVI [trans. Joel Wallace; Herefordshire, UK: 2010], 120-22, italics in original, emphasis in bold added)
Had the author of Hebrews wanted to convey such a “blanket” forgiveness as some wish to read into this pericope, he should have used a noun (e.g. τουν αγιουν [“the sanctified”]).
Something interesting appears in verse 10—the writer uses a perfect tense instead of a present participle. He says ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν (“we have been sanctified”). The difference apparently lies in the “we” of v. 10 (the author and his immediate hearers) in contrast to those addressed in v. 14 which is an open-ended inclusion of anyone who will experience the sanctification in the future. This being the case, in biblical Greek, it is better to use a present participle, because only that form can include those in the present who are being sanctified as well as those in the future who will be sanctified.
There is another possibility that τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους refers to the entire sanctification process, including “positional” sanctification, for the author and his hearers in v.10 (i.e. they have been sanctified [per v. 10] but they are also being sanctified [v.14]).
What about the claim that ιλασμος in 1 John 2:1-2 necessitates limited atonement; otherwise, John would be teaching universal (and unconditional) universal salvation? This has been ably answered by Southern Baptist scholar and theologian David Allen:
With respect to the word “propitiation” (Gk. hilasmos), it is important to note that John uses the noun form of the word and states that Christ is the propitiation for our sins and for the sins of the whole world. As scholars have demonstrated, “propitiation” includes “expiation.” Advocates of limited atonement often make a serious mistake when they make an invalid noun-to-verb conversion of the noun “propitiation.” Nouns and verbs are distinct for a reason. Nouns speak to what a thing is or what it does. Verbs speak to what a thing is doing or has done or shall do. Unlike verbs, nouns do not have a tense. The result is to read “propitiation” as if it is speaking about the atonement as both accomplished and applied—or accomplished with intent to apply effectually only to the elect. Christ is viewed as actually propitiating and forgiving, and reconciling those for whom the propitiation was made. But this is emphatically not what the verse says.
Once the illegitimate noun-to-verb transfer is made, then syllogistic arguments follow. For example, if “world” means all people, this would entail that all humanity’s sin has been propitiated and expiated (as an accomplished action with resulting salvation, according to limitarians); but given that it is not the case and that the sins of all humanity have been expiated, “world,” therefore, cannot denote all humanity. In other words:
1. If Christ has propitiated the wrath of God for a man (hypothetically named “Smith), then that man cannot fail to be saved.
2. Christ has propitiated the wrath of God for Smith.
3. Therefore, Smith cannot fail to be saved.
Or, to rephrase the syllogism into a Modus Tollens argument:
If Christ died for the whole world, then the whole world will necessarily be saved.
It is not the case that the whole world is saved;
Therefore, it is not the case that Christ died for the whole world.
The syllogisms are formally valid but not logically sound because the first premise works only on the noun-to-verb conversion. However, the noun hilasmos (“propitiation”), does not refer to an accomplished past-tense action but to function—i.e., how something is accomplished. “Propitiation” points back to Christ’s sacrifice for sins as a means for sinners to find forgiveness. The cross is the means whereby one may find forgiveness—via an accomplished propitiation/expiation (noun) for sins, not to an already accomplished application of the benefits of the atonement as subjective effect already completed.
Consider 1 John 2:1 as a parallel example and comparable in structure to 1 John 2:2. John says, “If anyone sins, we have an Advocate.” Here, Advocate (Gk. paraklēton) is a noun, and the sense is, if anyone seeks pardon for his sins, there is an advocate for them. The sense is not that Christ has already advocated (past tense verb indicated accomplished action) for them, but that He is their “Advocate” or the Counselor to whom they may go to find help and comfort. That is, if they confess their sin, He will advocate on their behalf. John is describing Christ’s office and function as Advocate—what He will accomplish with regard to those who confess their sins.
John’s point in 1 John 2:2 is that there is an accomplished, objective atonement that provides an ongoing means for subjective reconciliation to occur between a sinner and God when the sinner comes to God through Christ by faith. Propitiation accomplished does not, and cannot, ipso facto mean propitiation applied. Without repentance there can be no advocacy applied (1 John 2:1), and without faith in Christ there can be no propitiation applied. Christ’s death on the cross has made propitiation for the sins of all people and is objectively available—conditionally as to its efficacy to all who will come to God through Christ by faith. If any person confesses his sin, he will find in Christ an Advocate, because Christ is “the propitiation for our sins, and not or ours only but also for the whole world.” (David L Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019], 160-62, italics in original)
Finally, the Protestant interpretation of John 19:30 is ahistorical when one looks at early Christian interpretations of this passage. For instance, John Chrysostom (A.D. 349-407) wrote the following on the meaning of τετελεσται “it is finished” in John 19:30:
They parted the garments, by which such great miracles were done. But they wrought none now, Christ restraining His unspeakable power. And this was no small addition of insult. For as to one base and abject, as I said, and the vilest of all men; so do they dare to do all things. To the thieves at any rate they did nothing of the kind, but to Christ they dare it all. And they crucified Him in the midst of them, that He might share in their reputation.
And they gave Him gall to drink, and this to insult Him, but He would not. But another saith, that having tasted it, He said, "It is finished." And what meaneth, "It is finished?" The prophecy was fulfilled concerning Him. "For they gave me," it is said, "gall for my meat, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." But neither doth that evangelist indicate that He drank, for merely to taste differs not from not drinking, but hath one and the same signification.
But nevertheless not even here doth their contumely stop, but after having stripped and crucified Him, and offered Him vinegar, they proceeded still further, and beholding Him impaled upon the cross, they revile Him, both they themselves and the passers by; and this was more grievous than all, that on the charge of being an impostor and deceiver He suffered these things, and as a boaster, and vainly pretending what He said. Therefore they both crucified Him publicly, that they might make a show of it in the sight of all; and therefore also they did it by the hands of the soldiers, that these things being perpetrated even by a public tribunal, the insult might be the greater. (Homilies of John Chrysostom: Matthew XXVII.27-29, Homily LXXXVII, 1)
Hardly consistent with forensic atonement/penal substitution that many Protestants, especially Calvinists, desperately try to read into the text! Furthermore, In his commentary on John 19:30, John Calvin (1509-1564) offered the following, showing that Calvin did not believe that “it was finished” at the death of Jesus, but incorporated the resurrection of Jesus (cf. Rom 4:24-25); he also tries it in against the Roman Mass where Christ’s sacrifice is re-presented on an iterative basis. While I don’t agree completely with the following (Calvin held to a forensic view on the nature of the atonement), his comments does show that many “pop Protestant apologists” are guilty of a dangerous heresy by downplaying the bodily resurrection to the saving work of Christ (as well as his high priestly intercession [Rom 8:34; Heb 7:24-25; 1 John 2:1-2, etc]):
He repeats the same word which he had lately employed, Now this word, which Christ employs, well deserves our attention; for it shows that the whole accomplishment of our salvation, and all the parts of it, are contained in his death. We have already stated that his resurrection is not separated from his death, but Christ only intends to keep our faith fixed on himself alone, and not to allow it to turn aside in any direction whatever. The meaning, therefore, is, that every thing which contributes to the salvation of men is to be found in Christ, and ought not to be sought anywhere else; or—which amounts to the same thing—that the perfection of salvation is contained in him.
There is also an implied contrast; for Christ contrasts his death with the ancient sacrifices and with all the figures; as if he had said," Of all that was practiced under the Law, there was nothing that had any power in itself to make atonement for sins, to appease the wrath of God, and to obtain justification; but now the true salvation is exhibited and manifested to the world." On this doctrine depends the abolition of all the ceremonies of the Law; for it would be absurd to follow shadows, since we have the body in Christ.
If we give our assent to this word which Christ pronounced, we ought to be satisfied with his death alone for salvation, and we are not at liberty to apply for assistance in any other quarter; for he who was sent by the Heavenly Father to obtain for us a full acquittal, and to accomplish our redemption, knew well what belonged to his office, and did not fail in what he knew to be demanded of him. It was chiefly for the purpose of giving peace and tranquillity to our consciences that he pronounced this word, It is finished. Let us stop here, therefore, if we do not choose to be deprived of the salvation which he has procured for us.
But the whole religion of Popery tends to lead men to contrive for themselves innumerable methods of seeking salvation; and hence we infer, that it is full to overflowing with abominable sacrileges. More especially, this word of Christ condemns the abomination of the Mass. All the sacrifices of the Law must have ceased, for the salvation of men has been completed by the one sacrifice of the death of Christ. What right, then, have the Papists, or what plausible excuse can they assign for saying, that they are authorised to prepare a new sacrifice, to reconcile God to men? They reply that it is not a new sacrifice, but the very sacrifice which Christ offered. But this is easily refuted; for, in the first place, they have no command to offer it; and, secondly, Christ, having once accomplished, by a single oblation, all that was necessary to be done, declares, from the cross, that all is finished. They are worse than forgers, therefore, for they wickedly corrupt and falsify the testament sealed by the precious blood of the Son of God.
As we have seen throughout this article, the common Protestant interpretation of John 19:30 is based on eisegesis as with many of their other doctrines such as sola scriptura and Trinitarian Christology.
Support this blog:
Paypal
