PSA in the early Christian church

[Dizerner]

Where is hell presented in the gospel message in Acts where people were saved ?

hmmmmmmmmmm

I would not be surprised if you are denying hell already.

Warning bells should be going off all over the place for you, but you just don't care.

Then you slander God's Word and God's messenger.

That's not going to "fly."

 

[Johann]

Where is hell presented in the gospel message in Acts where people were saved ?

hmmmmmmmmmm

Should we sweep Hell also under the bed now?

J.

 

[civic]

I would not be surprised if you are denying hell already.

Warning bells should be going off all over the place for you, but you just don't care.

Then you slander God's Word and God's messenger.

That's not going to "fly."

Nice dodge hell is as real as heaven.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you denied heaven

 

[civic]

Should we sweep Hell also under the bed now?

J.

Nice dodge where is hell presented in the gospel or a salvific message in Acts where people were saved ?

I won’t hold my breath

Good luck with AI it won’t help neither will google

 

[Johann]

Nice dodge where is hell presented in the gospel or a salvific message in Acts where people were saved ?

I won’t hold my breath

Good luck with AI it won’t help neither will google

Good luck promulgating God's love but shun God's justice, that is not rightly dividing God's Holy Scripture-that is civic's presuppositions and reading into the text, or selective reading-called proof-texting.

The most foundational Hebrew word for "justice" is מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat), derived from the root שָׁפַט (shaphat), meaning "to judge," "to govern," or "to rule," indicating both judicial decision and broader rectitude or right-ordering (Genesis 18:25; Deuteronomy 32:4).

Closely related is צְדָקָה (tsedaqah), often translated "righteousness," but in many contexts it carries judicial overtones of justice (especially distributive or restorative justice), emphasizing rightness in relationship to others and to God (Psalm 89:14; Isaiah 1:27).

Another connected term is צֶדֶק (tsedeq), a noun from the same root as tsedaqah, often meaning "justice" or "righteousness" particularly as a standard or principle (Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 45:19).

When speaking specifically of God’s justice in the Hebrew Scriptures, the emphasis is often on His perfect mishpat (judgments) in accord with His unchanging tsedeq (righteousness) and emet (truth, אֱמֶת), together forming the basis for God's covenantal faithfulness (Psalm 89:14: "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before You").

Example where both terms appear side-by-side describing divine attributes: מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה (mishpat u-tsedaqah), “justice and righteousness,” as found in Genesis 18:19, describing Abraham’s expected way of life under divine covenant, reflecting God's own moral nature.

In prophetic literature, such as Isaiah, God’s justice is not merely forensic (declaring right/wrong) but restorative, aimed at putting the world back into proper order (Isaiah 1:27: “Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness”).

Importantly, in biblical Hebrew thought, justice is relational as well as legal; it binds together judicial fairness, moral uprightness, and covenantal loyalty, so that divine justice is an outworking of divine mercy and faithfulness, not their contradiction.

In rabbinic tradition, these terms are expanded further: mishpat relates to God’s strict, equitable judgment (Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 9:9), while tsedaqah can take on nuances of charity or almsgiving, emphasizing that God's justice includes provision for the needy.

Thus, in summation: God's justice in Hebrew is primarily מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat), but it is inseparably bound to צֶדֶק (tsedeq) and צְדָקָה (tsedaqah), forming a holistic vision of divine righteousness that governs, saves, restores, and judges all creation.

As you do with the preponderance of the Isaiah 53 passage.

J.

 

[synergy]

I hear you--

---and I appreciate the depth of your study and your care to distinguish between "propitiation" and "expiation," but I must point out that your argument, while thoughtful, misrepresents the scriptural and historical realities on several fronts.

First, you attempt to separate "expiation" and "propitiation" as if they are mutually exclusive, but in fact the biblical idea of atonement embraces both: expiation (removal of sin) and propitiation (satisfaction of divine justice and wrath).

Mercy and justice absolutely go together but if it was justice that would win each time out then we would all be toast. That’s why God’s Throne was called the Mercy Seat, not a Retribution Seat.

Let’s begin with the Greek itself.

The word you focus on, ἱλασμός (hilasmos), is indeed used in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10 - but it does not exclusively mean "expiation" in the sense of "removal of sin" without regard to divine wrath.

Of course there’s divine wrath reserved by God for sinners that refuse to repent. What I’m against is the heretical depiction of wrath being manifested within the Trinity which is the hallmark of Propitiation. That would make the Trinity a Tri-Disunity.

Its cognate verb ἱλάσκομαι (hilaskomai) and noun ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) show clearly in Scripture and Jewish usage that it involves appeasement of divine displeasure and the turning aside of wrath.

For instance.

In Hebrews 2:17, it is said that Christ had "to make propitiation [ἱλάσκεσθαι hilaskesthai] for the sins of the people," a clear action involving not merely cleansing but appeasing divine judgment.

In Romans 3:25, Paul explicitly says Christ was "set forth as a ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion)" - the same word used in the LXX for the mercy seat (kapporet, כַּפֹּרֶת), where blood was sprinkled to satisfy the demands of divine justice (Leviticus 16).

Did you notice the words “Mercy Seat” in Rom 3:25? If the Atonement was a Propitiation then the Throne would be called “Retribution Seat”.

Thus, you cannot historically or linguistically erase the appeasement element from the semantic field of these terms.

I just did. See my comment above.

Second, you claim that "propitiation" is merely a later import from Greek paganism (Plutarch, etc.).

Yet, even in the LXX- the Greek Old Testament widely used by the Apostles- the term ἱλάσκομαι and its derivatives explicitly involve the appeasement of divine anger--

Numbers 16:46 (LXX) - Moses tells Aaron to make atonement because "wrath has gone out from the Lord" (ἠρξατο γὰρ θυμὸς παρὰ κυρίου). The atonement (ἱλάσκεσθαι) is the specific response to divine wrath, not merely cleansing.

Leviticus 16:15-16 (LXX) - On the Day of Atonement, the blood is sprinkled to "make atonement" because of the uncleannesses and transgressions of Israel -and yet the ritual is explicitly tied to averting wrath and restoring fellowship.

I don’t see any wrath being shared within the Trinity as Propitiation demands.

In short, even in the Hebrew sacrificial system as translated into Greek, atonement includes the turning away of divine wrath - not merely internal cleansing.

Third, you suggest that "God was already favorable toward us" and therefore propitiation is unnecessary.

While it is true that God’s love is the origin of the atonement (Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10), love and justice are not opposites.
God’s holy love demands satisfaction for sin - and the New Testament is clear that Christ bore our sins judicially, not merely therapeutically.

2 Corinthians 5:21 "He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin."

Galatians 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us." Strong, biblical language here.

Isaiah 53:10 (Hebrew) — וַיהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי ("YHWH was pleased to crush Him; He made Him sick") divine agency is explicitly involved in the Servant’s penal suffering. There is no getting away from this, the language is penal.

There is a massive difference how the LXX represents Isa 53:10 and your translation above.

Isa 53:10 (LXX) καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς· ἐὰν δῶτε περὶ ἁμαρτίας, ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ὄψεται σπέρμα μακρόβιον· καὶ βούλεται κύριος ἀφελεῖν

The underlined portion of the LXX verse can be literally translated into English as such: And the Lord willingly cleanse him his wounds. It sounds awkward in English but again the thing to note is that there is no "pleased", no "crush", and no "He made Him sick".

To be "pleased" means to take pleasure. That direct relationship is undeniable. Only a Sadist takes pleasure in another's calamities. That's why there is no sadistic pleasure in the LXX for Isaiah 53:10. Instead, βούλεται denotes volition, not emotion.

The word καθαρίσαι denotes cleansing, not crushing.

The word πληγῆς denotes the wounds Jesus received at the Cross at the hands of sinners, not that God made him sick.

Thus, the cross was not merely about expiating sin from humanity’s side; it was about satisfying divine righteousness.

The rest of your comments rely heavily on Hebrew knowledge which I’m woefully deficient of. I could easily present the LXX side of things but I’ve already mapped out the battle lines at Isaiah 53:10. We can debate that verse and chapter if you wish.

 

[civic]

Mercy and justice absolutely go together but if it was justice that would win each time out then we would all be toast. That’s why God’s Throne was called the Mercy Seat, not a Retribution Seat.

Of course there’s divine wrath reserved by God for sinners that refuse to repent. What I’m against is the heretical depiction of wrath being manifested within the Trinity which is the hallmark of Propitiation. That would make the Trinity a Tri-Disunity.

Did you notice the words “Mercy Seat” in Rom 3:25? If the Atonement was a Propitiation then the Throne would be called “Retribution Seat”.

I just did. See my comment above.

I don’t see any wrath being shared within the Trinity as Propitiation demands.

There is a massive difference how the LXX represents Isa 53:10 and your translation above.

Isa 53:10 (LXX) καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς· ἐὰν δῶτε περὶ ἁμαρτίας, ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ὄψεται σπέρμα μακρόβιον· καὶ βούλεται κύριος ἀφελεῖν

The underlined portion of the LXX verse can be literally translated into English as such: And the Lord willingly cleanse him his wounds. It sounds awkward in English but again the thing to note is that there is no "pleased", no "crush", and no "He made Him sick".

To be "pleased" means to take pleasure. That direct relationship is undeniable. Only a Sadist takes pleasure in another's calamities. That's why there is no sadistic pleasure in the LXX for Isaiah 53:10. Instead, βούλεται denotes volition, not emotion.

The word καθαρίσαι denotes cleansing, not crushing.

The word πληγῆς denotes the wounds Jesus received at the Cross at the hands of sinners, not that God made him sick.

The rest of your comments rely heavily on Hebrew knowledge which I’m woefully deficient of. I could easily present the LXX side of things but I’ve already mapped out the battle lines at Isaiah 53:10. We can debate that verse and chapter if you wish.

Amen

 

[civic]

Good luck promulgating God's love but shun God's justice, that is not rightly dividing God's Holy Scripture-that is civic's presuppositions and reading into the text, or selective reading-called proof-texting.

The most foundational Hebrew word for "justice" is מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat), derived from the root שָׁפַט (shaphat), meaning "to judge," "to govern," or "to rule," indicating both judicial decision and broader rectitude or right-ordering (Genesis 18:25; Deuteronomy 32:4).

Closely related is צְדָקָה (tsedaqah), often translated "righteousness," but in many contexts it carries judicial overtones of justice (especially distributive or restorative justice), emphasizing rightness in relationship to others and to God (Psalm 89:14; Isaiah 1:27).

Another connected term is צֶדֶק (tsedeq), a noun from the same root as tsedaqah, often meaning "justice" or "righteousness" particularly as a standard or principle (Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 45:19).

When speaking specifically of God’s justice in the Hebrew Scriptures, the emphasis is often on His perfect mishpat (judgments) in accord with His unchanging tsedeq (righteousness) and emet (truth, אֱמֶת), together forming the basis for God's covenantal faithfulness (Psalm 89:14: "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before You").

Example where both terms appear side-by-side describing divine attributes: מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה (mishpat u-tsedaqah), “justice and righteousness,” as found in Genesis 18:19, describing Abraham’s expected way of life under divine covenant, reflecting God's own moral nature.

In prophetic literature, such as Isaiah, God’s justice is not merely forensic (declaring right/wrong) but restorative, aimed at putting the world back into proper order (Isaiah 1:27: “Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness”).

Importantly, in biblical Hebrew thought, justice is relational as well as legal; it binds together judicial fairness, moral uprightness, and covenantal loyalty, so that divine justice is an outworking of divine mercy and faithfulness, not their contradiction.

In rabbinic tradition, these terms are expanded further: mishpat relates to God’s strict, equitable judgment (Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 9:9), while tsedaqah can take on nuances of charity or almsgiving, emphasizing that God's justice includes provision for the needy.

Thus, in summation: God's justice in Hebrew is primarily מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat), but it is inseparably bound to צֶדֶק (tsedeq) and צְדָקָה (tsedaqah), forming a holistic vision of divine righteousness that governs, saves, restores, and judges all creation.

As you do with the preponderance of the Isaiah 53 passage.

J.

You don’t understand Gods love. Jesus demonstrated it on the cross with the guilty condemned sinner- today you will be with Me in paradise. And there are tons of other examples. The woman caught in adultery. Gods love, mercy, forgiveness is seen way more in scripture rather than His justice. Jesus taught the opposite in the sermon on the mount. No eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Love, mercy , forgiveness triumphs.

 

[civic]

Mercy and justice absolutely go together but if it was justice that would win each time out then we would all be toast. That’s why God’s Throne was called the Mercy Seat, not a Retribution Seat.

Of course there’s divine wrath reserved by God for sinners that refuse to repent. What I’m against is the heretical depiction of wrath being manifested within the Trinity which is the hallmark of Propitiation. That would make the Trinity a Tri-Disunity.

Did you notice the words “Mercy Seat” in Rom 3:25? If the Atonement was a Propitiation then the Throne would be called “Retribution Seat”.

I just did. See my comment above.

I don’t see any wrath being shared within the Trinity as Propitiation demands.

There is a massive difference how the LXX represents Isa 53:10 and your translation above.

Isa 53:10 (LXX) καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς· ἐὰν δῶτε περὶ ἁμαρτίας, ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ὄψεται σπέρμα μακρόβιον· καὶ βούλεται κύριος ἀφελεῖν

The underlined portion of the LXX verse can be literally translated into English as such: And the Lord willingly cleanse him his wounds. It sounds awkward in English but again the thing to note is that there is no "pleased", no "crush", and no "He made Him sick".

To be "pleased" means to take pleasure. That direct relationship is undeniable. Only a Sadist takes pleasure in another's calamities. That's why there is no sadistic pleasure in the LXX for Isaiah 53:10. Instead, βούλεται denotes volition, not emotion.

The word καθαρίσαι denotes cleansing, not crushing.

The word πληγῆς denotes the wounds Jesus received at the Cross at the hands of sinners, not that God made him sick.

The rest of your comments rely heavily on Hebrew knowledge which I’m woefully deficient of. I could easily present the LXX side of things but I’ve already mapped out the battle lines at Isaiah 53:10. We can debate that verse and chapter if you wish.

The Hebrew knowledge is from AI, google and theologians not from reading and translating Hebrew into English as one learns in seminary.

 

[synergy]

The Hebrew knowledge is from AI, google and theologians not from reading and translating Hebrew into English as one learns in seminary.

I would never trust AI in any case. Thank God we have the Greek OT to help us to understand OT verses. You do know that it was the Greek OT that the Bereans used for cross examining Paul and it was the Greek OT that was overwhelmingly appealed to when the Apostles wrote their Epistles.

 

[civic]

I would never trust AI in any case. Thank God we have the Greek OT to help us to understand OT verses. You do know that it was the Greek OT that the Bereans used for cross examining Paul and it was the Greek OT that was overwhelmingly appealed to when the Apostles wrote their Epistles.

Yes the LXX is often quoted by the NT writers. The New Testament writers, who wrote in Greek, often quoted or alluded to the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Masoretic text.