Is Romans 3:25 in the Greek in ANY manuscript version the same? (Some who knows greek - help)

[Holy Universe]

I’m trying to convince a brother in christ “Faith in the blood” is a real thing in the Bible. It’s not found in his translation esv but only in the kjv.
He said I’m not qualified to interpret these and he doesn't trust the chat gtp answer so I'm looking for someone who knows greek who can chime in here and small possibility of being willing to standby your response in case he wants to chime in - no pressure though.


Across ANY greek manuscript for any location/source - is it true, “faith in the blood” is the most literal “accurate” word for word translation in all manuscripts - there is 100% agreement and ZERO doubt. “Faith in the blood” is a phrase inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Is this correct?

Below is the chatgtp answer - is it reliable?



All ancient Greek manuscripts — Textus Receptus, Majority (Byzantine), Vaticanus (Alexandrian), and the modern Critical Text — say the same thing.
Every one of them contains the phrase ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, which literally means “in His blood.”

---

1. Textus Receptus (1550 / Beza 1598)​

Greek:
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Literal translation:
“Whom God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”

Plain meaning:
God presented Jesus as the mercy seat, and we receive forgiveness through faith in His blood.

---

2. Byzantine / Majority Text (2005 Robinson–Pierpont)​

Greek:
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Literal translation:
“Whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, for a demonstration of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins that had been previously committed in the forbearance of God.”

Plain meaning:
The Byzantine manuscripts repeat the same words — faith in His blood.
No differences at all.

---

3. Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th century) / Alexandrian Family​

Greek (transcribed from Vaticanus):
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Literal translation:
“Whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to show His righteousness because of the passing over of former sins in the forbearance of God.”

Plain meaning:
Even the oldest Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, says faith in His blood.
There is no variant—every copy agrees.

---

4. Modern Critical Text (NA-28 / UBS-5)​

Greek:
ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Literal translation:
“Whom God put forward as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness because of the passing over of previous sins in the forbearance of God.”

Plain meaning:
Even the modern scholarly Greek text agrees word-for-word with the older manuscripts:
through faith in His blood.

---

Simple conclusion anyone can grasp​

All Greek manuscripts — old and new — say διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ,
which every translator in history knows literally means
“through faith in His blood.”

There are no textual differences here.
The only difference is how English translators choose to paraphrase it:

Greek phrase	Literal English	Some modern paraphrases
διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ	through faith in His blood	by His blood to be received by faith (ESV); through the shedding of His blood to be received by faith (NIV)

So the Greek itself — in every manuscript — affirms faith in His blood.
The translation philosophy, not the manuscripts, causes newer Bibles to soften or re-word it.

---

Short summary​

Every Greek text of Romans 3 : 25 — Textus Receptus, Majority, Vaticanus, and Critical — contains the same words διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, literally “through faith in His blood.”
The phrase is not a KJV addition; it’s the unanimous Greek reading.

 

[Hawkins]

It doesn't seem so. All translations are more on "a mercy seat through faith" and (a mercy) through His blood.

 

[Delvianna]

In greek there is word order that matters. When you read the word for word translation, the word order changes between english and greek. So I think you're interpreting in the wrong word order because it's in the greek word order and not in english. For instance...
This is in english word order:

This is in Greek word order:

You see the difference?

Now, doesn't that change the meaning? So in essence, chat gpt is incorrect. Because you can't keep the same order when you're translating into another language.

 

[jas3]

The question of translation is whether εν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ should go with ἱλαστήριον or πίστεως. I would say either is a valid choice, but I'd probably lean toward "through faith in His blood," keeping the original word order.

 

[BobRyan]

Young's Literal

25 whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God --

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 10:43
43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

 

[Clare73]

I’m trying to convince a brother in christ “Faith in the blood” is a real thing in the Bible. It’s not found in his translation esv but only in the kjv.
He said I’m not qualified to interpret these and he doesn't trust the chat gtp answer so I'm looking for someone who knows greek who can chime in here and small possibility of being willing to standby your response in case he wants to chime in - no pressure though.

"Faith in his blood" simply means believing and trusting in Jesus' atoning work for the forgiveness of his sin.

 

[Holy Universe]

What happens when you change the word order?

Does not the object of that sentence then change from the blood "faith in the blood" to something else.

That is translation philosophy, not the Greek's fault. The KJV kept it perhaps because they did not want to alter the object of faith in that sentence. "Faith in the blood" was part of preface of the KJV - it wasn't side issue - but seems to be one of the key scriptures of the bible!

I wouldn't mess with that in my opinion so casually.

 

[Holy Universe]

"Faith in his blood" simply means believing and trusting in Jesus' atoning work for the forgiveness of his sin.

It's his sacrifical blood atonement most specifically - atoning work is shorthand. He is our passover lamb. The blood imagery vocabularly God choses seems to be heavily emphasized. I would not equivocate it away so casually - at the expense of ever mentioning the blood.

If someone has faith in the sacrificial blood atonement of christ - yes, i'd say they have "faith in the blood".

If somone just trusts in his death on the cross with no understanding of blood atonement, passover lamb, or the blood plays any role in salvation - would they techinically have "faith in the blood" - according to levitcus 17:11 which is the basis for atonement. He has given us blood to make atonement for our soul on the altar. Faith in the blood isnt a vague term but pointing to the sacrificial system in leviticus - so in some point, should not this be understood for salvation - even to the simplest level a child can understand. I'm a sinner. A sacrifice was made by Jesus. His blood covers me. There is peace with God.

There seems to be a chain there. If death was the only thing someone has faith in then would bypass the blood and therefor the altar according to levitus 17:11. That is my concern.

 

[Holy Universe]

It doesn't seem so. All translations are more on "a mercy seat through faith" and (a mercy) through His blood.

View attachment 371880

What greek manuscript is this? Mercy seat means "propitiation". The screen shot looks like its saying "a mercy seat through the faith in the his blood" not what you said - im confused.

 

[Holy Universe]

The question of translation is whether εν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ should go with ἱλαστήριον or πίστεως. I would say either is a valid choice, but I'd probably lean toward "through faith in His blood," keeping the original word order.

I'd agree keeping the original word order would be the way to go because otherwise you'd have to change the object of faith - no?

Is it valid to change the meaning of sentences to translate. I'm confused here.

 

[Delvianna]

What happens when you change the word order?

Does not the object of that sentence then change from the blood "faith in the blood" to something else.

That is translation philosophy, not the Greek's fault. The KJV kept it perhaps because they did not want to alter the object of faith in that sentence. "Faith in the blood" was part of preface of the KJV - it wasn't side issue - but seems to be one of the key scriptures of the bible!

I wouldn't mess with that in my opinion so casually.

I would argue propitiation is the object, not blood and the idea its a key scripture, its your opinion. I personally value other scripture references as Christ himself being the door. Not his blood, Him. (John 10:7-9) I think you're using KJV as the ultimate source of translation. In any language, where you place wording in a sentence can change the meaning of the word entirely. To give you an example, Japanese does this. 「はし」 can mean chopsticks, bridge or end depending on where it's used. So this isn't translation philosophy, this is pure translation rules, period. You want to argue the interpretation behind the translation and then wanted help with Greek, but are ignoring the rules of how Greek is written and then want proof in the Greek to back up your interpretation of what the KJV says because your friend refutes it.

Greek does the same like many other languages, as the Japanese example I gave. Depending on placement in the sentence, changes the word translation and meaning. This is why in a concordance you have multiple words listed for translation options. If you want to understand how the bible was originally written, this needs to be something you need to read, learn and understand because there are translations out there that doesn't do this and screws up the meaning of a verse when it's translated. So, my answer is... KJV translation for this verse is incorrect. Your understanding for this verse is incorrect and I was trying to show you why without all the technical back and forth by just showing you how sentence structure changes between Greek and english. So no, I'm not being "casual" about it. NKJV is actually more accurate for this verse as the translation fits and keeps the same meaning that is backed up by other scripture.

Edit: I also want to state, I'm not a greek scholar by any means, but thats my understanding of it. If someone is a greek scholar, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Holy Universe]

I would argue propitiation is the object, not blood and the idea its a key scripture, its your opinion. I personally value other scripture references as Christ himself being the door. Not his blood, Him. (John 10:7-9) I think you're using KJV as the ultimate source of translation. In any language, where you place wording in a sentence can change the meaning of the word entirely. To give you an example, Japanese does this. 「はし」 can mean chopsticks, bridge or end depending on where it's used. So this isn't translation philosophy, this is pure translation rules, period. You want to argue the interpretation behind the translation and then wanted help with Greek, but are ignoring the rules of how Greek is written and then want proof in the Greek to back up your interpretation of what the KJV says because your friend refutes it.

Greek does the same like many other languages, as the Japanese example I gave. Depending on placement in the sentence, changes the word translation and meaning. This is why in a concordance you have multiple words listed for translation options. If you want to understand how the bible was originally written, this needs to be something you need to read, learn and understand because there are translations out there that doesn't do this and screws up the meaning of a verse when it's translated. So, my answer is... KJV translation for this verse is incorrect. Your understanding for this verse is incorrect and I was trying to show you why without all the technical back and forth by just showing you how sentence structure changes between Greek and english. So no, I'm not being "casual" about it. NKJV is actually more accurate for this verse as the translation fits and keeps the same meaning that is backed up by other scripture.

Apologies, casual was a poor word choice.

I'd like to understand the rules of how Greek is written. It seems the literal is "faith in his blood" - that is the greek rules. Only the translation jumbles things outside the KJV or other translations that keep it. Isn't the problem the english rules and not the greek rules?

The KJV reads in paraphrase - Christ is our propitation - which we receive through "faith in this blood". That is why I mean by object of faith. It's in the blood and not Christ - according to the original greek. It doesn't say have faith in the propitiation to receive the propiation.

Jesus Christ is the mercy seat and his blood is applied inside of Him on the cross AND was sprinkled in heaven according to Hebrews 9 where it mentions sprinkling of the blood in an altar not made by human hands. Having faith in the blood is not something outside of Christ - there is no competition between the blood and His person. The blood is medium by which the sacrifice is accepted by God.

Romans 3:25 needs to be understood in the context of leviticus 17:11.

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.


We are taking about how to receive atonement/propitiation. If that isn't a KEY passage, I don't know what is, with all due respect.

Grace, peace, patience, understanding, unity, love of the brethren.

 

[Delvianna]

I'd like to understand the rules of how Greek is written. It seems the literal is "faith in his blood" - that is the greek rules. Only the translation jumbles things outside the KJV or other translations that keep it. Isn't the problem the english rules and not the greek rules?

The KJV reads in paraphrase - Christ is our propitation - which we receive through "faith in this blood". That is why I mean by object of faith. It's in the blood and not Christ - according to the original greek. It doesn't say have faith in the propitiation to receive the propiation.

Jesus Christ is the mercy seat and his blood is applie inside of Him. Having faith in the blood is not something outside of Christ - there is no competition between the blood and His person.

Romans 3:25 needs to be understood in the context of leviticus 17:11.

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.


We are taking about how to receive atonement/propitation. If that isn't a KEY passage, I don't know what is, with all due respect.

Grace, peace, patience, understanding, unity, love of the brethren.

I'm doing some digging and so far, the passage is debated (yay -.-) for translation because of the word ἱλαστήριον which is where the issue lies. While some translate it to Propitiation, others translate it mercy seat. The way the sentence is phrased apparently makes it ambiguous whether ἐν αὐτοῦ αἵματι modifies πίστεως (faith in his blood) or ἱλαστήριον (a propitiation by his blood). (So my apologies for being matter of fact, as this apparently isn't as straight forward.)

So some argue that the context is linked to Leviticus 16, where it symbolizes atonement. So tying Christs blood to the Day of Atonement, not blood in a literal sense. Because it’s possible that ἐν αὐτοῦ αἵματι qualifies ἱλαστήριον, meaning Christ is set forth as a propitiation "by his blood," with faith as the means of accessing it. This makes the most sense to me because of all the verses that link justification to faith in Christ.

 

[Holy Universe]

I'm doing some digging and so far, the passage is debated (yay -.-) for translation because of the word ἱλαστήριον which is where the issue lies. While some translate it to Propitiation, others translate it mercy seat. The way the sentence is phrased apparently makes it ambiguous whether ἐν αὐτοῦ αἵματι modifies πίστεως (faith in his blood) or ἱλαστήριον (a propitiation by his blood). (So my apologies for being matter of fact, as this apparently isn't as straight forward.)

So some argue that the context is linked to Leviticus 16, where it symbolizes atonement. So tying Christs blood to the Day of Atonement, not blood in a literal sense. Because it’s possible that ἐν αὐτοῦ αἵματι qualifies ἱλαστήριον, meaning Christ is set forth as a propitiation "by his blood," with faith as the means of accessing it. This makes the most sense to me because of all the verses that link justification to faith in Christ.

I appreciate your gentless and grace. Note, I updated my last reply with a few more details that might be helpful, in case you are interested.

Lots of verses to link justification via faith in christ, other verses say, all those who believe, all those who call out to him, etc. The question is, are there multiple gospels? I'd say not. They are all pieces of the one gospel. I'd say, he who has faith in jesus will also have faith in his blood (or faith in the blood atonement etc), and will call out to him, and will do the will of the father, etc. We need to take all of scripture into account, lest we come up with multiple gospels.

Faith in christ is general, faith in the blood is more specific, it's the mechanism so to speak of receiving the propititaion according to the greek and hence, salvation, no? That's why it's important to understand this passage clearly.

Here in Romans 3:25, Paul is not giving a gospel overview like in Corinthians 15:34 - (his death, buriel, ressurection, etc) but is articulating the mechanism of justification and atonement. It's an entirely seperate goal and intent. Yes, the gospel is we are saved by what Christ is (because of who He is) but Romans 3:25 explains how we are saved - throgh faith in his blood, etc. This isn't seperate from faith in christ, or faith in the gospel, etc. Having faith in the blood is all of these.

 

[Delvianna]

We need to take all of scripture into account, lest we come up with multiple gospels.

I do agree that we need to take all of scripture into account, so that we aren't creating opposing views. Truth has to be consistent.

Faith in christ is general, faith in the blood is more specific, it's the mechanism so to speak of receiving the propititaion and hence, salvation, no?

There are other instances where Christ alludes to a relationship as being key too when it comes to salvation (abiding in the vine so you don't wither and die, where Jesus tells those who practice lawlessness that he doesn't "know" them). I view it like this...

• Salvation = Relationship with Christ (Which at the core includes faith. You can't have a relationship without faith. That makes no sense.)
• Understanding atonement/justification is for knowledge and not a requirement of salvation.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." -John 5:24

Jesus never taught about his blood. He gave symbolic references to it and essentially tied it in passover with him being the sacrificial lamb during the last supper but he never once said to believe in atonement of what he does, he constantly says to believe in Him. Could you believe in his blood that cleansed us? Sure, but it's not necessary or a requirement for salvation, just a nuance for understanding what Christ did on the cross and how it applies to the laws requirements.

If understanding the nuances of what Christ did/does for us is a requirement for salvation, then that would have been repeated several times, at least by Jesus. Because then the question of how successful his ministry was comes into question when you have instances of his preaching and teaching crowds that he never mentions anything about his blood, or atonement. Instead, he consistently just refers back to himself being the way the truth and the life.

 

[Holy Universe]

I do agree that we need to take all of scripture into account, so that we aren't creating opposing views. Truth has to be consistent.


There are other instances where Christ alludes to a relationship as being key too when it comes to salvation (abiding in the vine so you don't wither and die, where Jesus tells those who practice lawlessness that he doesn't "know" them). I view it like this...

• Salvation = Relationship with Christ (Which at the core includes faith. You can't have a relationship without faith. That makes no sense.)
• Understanding atonement/justification is for knowledge and not a requirement of salvation.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." -John 5:24

Jesus never taught about his blood. He gave symbolic references to it and essentially tied it in passover with him being the sacrificial lamb during the last supper but he never once said to believe in atonement of what he does, he constantly says to believe in Him. Could you believe in his blood that cleansed us? Sure, but it's not necessary or a requirement for salvation, just a nuance for understanding what Christ did on the cross and how it applies to the laws requirements.

If understanding the nuances of what Christ did/does for us is a requirement for salvation, then that would have been repeated several times, at least by Jesus. Because then the question of how successful his ministry was comes into question when you have instances of his preaching and teaching crowds that he never mentions anything about his blood, or atonement. Instead, he consistently just refers back to himself being the way the truth and the life.

Praise the Lord—you seem quite amenable and reasonable. Thanks for the turnaround and demonstration of grace.

Yes, I also agree that abiding is key. That is what every believer who has faith will do—that’s what faith looks like. Someone who has faith in Christ in general will also have specific faith in the blood, trusting the gospel, and will be abiding in Christ—knowing Him relationally—and, even more, will bear fruit and mortify the deeds of the body.

True faith has understanding which effects the heart unto obedience and fruit - acts of love!

This shows that knowing the gospel—what He did and who He is—is not enough per se. One must understand it; but ultimately, it’s faith in the gospel rightly understood that Scripture indicates as salvation. Otherwise, without correct understanding (as you seemed to be indicating), simply “know the gospel (death, burial, resurrection) and believe” would be enough for salvation. But riddle me this: isn’t it also necessary to have the right gospel understanding and the right Jesus?

If you don’t believe He is sinless or God, will you still be saved—or is that a different Jesus? If you believe Jesus didn’t need to shed blood to redeem us (cf. Leviticus 17:11) and that only His dying was sufficient—is that the true gospel, or the true Savior whom Scripture defines as “our Passover Lamb” (this implies sacrificial blood atonement) ? If Jesus died by drowning, would that atone for our souls?

Scripture doesn't say we receive the propitiation through faith in his life, or death, but in his blood - well the greek seems to strongly indicate that. Translations steer away from the blood - the esv even changes levitus 17:11 to point back to the life on the altar and not the blood - to potential disaster. The ESV points away from the blood nearly if not all every time. If salvation really depends on this faith and understanding in the blood - that would be dire - potentially.

I hope you see my point: one must have a correct understanding of the gospel and of who Jesus is to be saved—not a complete theology, but the vital elements. Would you agree with this—that we need to understand something in order to be saved? Or is mere vague belief sufficient—“a person named Jesus died for me”—without knowing how or why that matters, beyond the historical facts of His death, burial, and resurrection? Even non-believers can affirm those facts.

When we take other scripture into account (faith in the blood, abiding, calling out, doing the will of the father, etc) surely we can see this logically rules out vague belief. Yet, believe in Jesus still saves, but it's a general summary statement, but only according to the word and understanding of it. In short - it's shorthand. He doesn't need to explain justification and atonement every time the gospel is mentioned.

I believe God calls us to a specific faith (in the blood - or sacrificial blood atonement - as part of the gospel - not a different or new one) in a specific Person (the sinless Godman) ; otherwise He could have commanded simple belief from heaven without needing to die. If His death alone were enough, why have an altar on earth and in heaven receiving blood to make atonement for our souls? The blood is a vital piece of the story and our faith; we should appreciate it and preach it.

Some will say the altar on earth pointed to christ as the true propitiation, which is the once and for all atonement, not just the blood atonement of past which was temporary - therefore the blood is not necessary as it points to the Christ himself. Yet, take heed, If that were try, why would Christ himself still sprinkle His blood in heaven? He fulfilled the law of moses. Answer me this, is that possible if he changed the blood atonement sacrifice by not offering it, or it somehow wasn't even necessary? How can it be said he fulfilled the law via every jot and tittle - and take heed - leviticus 17:11 is not just a tot an tittle but potentially THE dot and tittle.

Thus even the new testament is in the blood of Christ - this potentially so called jot and tittle which the ESV and others seem to dismiss as but a shadow and not the very medium of salvation to trust in, not apart from christ, but in christ, it takes place in him so it can be say everything culminates in christ - even the entire levitical sacrificial system!!!!!

I love how deeply you’re thinking here—the same thoughts occurred to me too, believe me.

“Jesus never taught about His blood. He gave symbolic references to it and tied it to Passover—presenting Himself as the sacrificial Lamb at the Last Supper—but He never once said to believe in atonement. He constantly says to believe in Him. You could believe in His blood that cleansed us, sure, but it’s not necessary or a requirement for salvation; just a nuance for understanding what Christ did on the cross and how it applies to the Law’s requirements.”

This was spoken before the cross—technically still within the Old-Covenant era He was fulfilling—in which blood on the altar was required (and which He fulfilled, as Hebrews explains). Yes, on the cross the payment was made—“It is finished”—and yet He also appeared in heaven as High Priest at the true mercy seat with His own blood, so the sacrifice would be presented and applied to all who believe (Hebrews 9–10). Correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems to be the argument.

John the Baptist says, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” That links to Leviticus 17:11 (life is in the blood, given on the altar) and to Passover. This is “indirect,” as you say, but Paul’s epistles—his gospel expounded to him by revelation—explain explicitly the ground of justification: “justified by His blood,” “through faith in His blood.” Paul, by the Spirit, pieces together what it all meant: we are justified through the sacrificial blood-atonement of Christ. To have faith in this is to have faith in the gospel and in Jesus. The blood matters because of who He is—the sinless God-Man.

This magnifies His glory. By presenting justification via blood, God grounds our faith not in vague abstraction but in a concrete altar. Even a child can “see” the blood on the mercy seat. That concreteness aids assurance.
You’re right: “faith in the blood,” and even the gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4, is not laid out with the same clarity in the four Gospels; there we see shadows and types. The fuller clarity comes later through Paul in this New-Covenant era opened widely to the Gentiles. To the Jews steeped in Messianic expectation, believing He is the Messiah may have been framed differently within their existing Scriptural categories. To us Gentiles, in a different culture, the dispensation emphasizes grace and apostolic explanation rather than inherited Messianic categories.

I hope that makes sense and helps. A lot is going on—feel free to ask any questions if I was unclear. I don’t expect you to take my word for it; be a good Berean!

 

[Aaron112]

But riddle me this: isn’t it also necessary to have the right gospel understanding and the right Jesus?

Can any man save another man if the other man strongly all their life believes totally a false gospel ?
Will (or can) any apostle or angel or evangelist convert the ones who are dead walking ?

 

[Delvianna]

Praise the Lord—you seem quite amenable and reasonable. Thanks for the turnaround and demonstration of grace.

Yes, I also agree that abiding is key. That is what every believer who has faith will do—that’s what faith looks like. Someone who has faith in Christ in general will also have specific faith in the blood, trusting the gospel, and will be abiding in Christ—knowing Him relationally—and, even more, will bear fruit and mortify the deeds of the body.

True faith has understanding which effects the heart unto obedience and fruit - acts of love!

This shows that knowing the gospel—what He did and who He is—is not enough per se. One must understand it; but ultimately, it’s faith in the gospel rightly understood that Scripture indicates as salvation. Otherwise, without correct understanding (as you seemed to be indicating), simply “know the gospel (death, burial, resurrection) and believe” would be enough for salvation. But riddle me this: isn’t it also necessary to have the right gospel understanding and the right Jesus?

If you don’t believe He is sinless or God, will you still be saved—or is that a different Jesus? If you believe Jesus didn’t need to shed blood to redeem us (cf. Leviticus 17:11) and that only His dying was sufficient—is that the true gospel, or the true Savior whom Scripture defines as “our Passover Lamb” (this implies sacrificial blood atonement) ? If Jesus died by drowning, would that atone for our souls?

Scripture doesn't say we receive the propitiation through faith in his life, or death, but in his blood - well the greek seems to strongly indicate that. Translations steer away from the blood - the esv even changes levitus 17:11 to point back to the life on the altar and not the blood - to potential disaster. The ESV points away from the blood nearly if not all every time. If salvation really depends on this faith and understanding in the blood - that would be dire - potentially.

I hope you see my point: one must have a correct understanding of the gospel and of who Jesus is to be saved—not a complete theology, but the vital elements. Would you agree with this—that we need to understand something in order to be saved? Or is mere vague belief sufficient—“a person named Jesus died for me”—without knowing how or why that matters, beyond the historical facts of His death, burial, and resurrection? Even non-believers can affirm those facts.

When we take other scripture into account (faith in the blood, abiding, calling out, doing the will of the father, etc) surely we can see this logically rules out vague belief. Yet, believe in Jesus still saves, but it's a general summary statement, but only according to the word and understanding of it. In short - it's shorthand. He doesn't need to explain justification and atonement every time the gospel is mentioned.

I believe God calls us to a specific faith (in the blood - or sacrificial blood atonement - as part of the gospel - not a different or new one) in a specific Person (the sinless Godman) ; otherwise He could have commanded simple belief from heaven without needing to die. If His death alone were enough, why have an altar on earth and in heaven receiving blood to make atonement for our souls? The blood is a vital piece of the story and our faith; we should appreciate it and preach it.

Some will say the altar on earth pointed to christ as the true propitiation, which is the once and for all atonement, not just the blood atonement of past which was temporary - therefore the blood is not necessary as it points to the Christ himself. Yet, take heed, If that were try, why would Christ himself still sprinkle His blood in heaven? He fulfilled the law of moses. Answer me this, is that possible if he changed the blood atonement sacrifice by not offering it, or it somehow wasn't even necessary? How can it be said he fulfilled the law via every jot and tittle - and take heed - leviticus 17:11 is not just a tot an tittle but potentially THE dot and tittle.

Thus even the new testament is in the blood of Christ - this potentially so called jot and tittle which the ESV and others seem to dismiss as but a shadow and not the very medium of salvation to trust in, not apart from christ, but in christ, it takes place in him so it can be say everything culminates in christ - even the entire levitical sacrificial system!!!!!

I love how deeply you’re thinking here—the same thoughts occurred to me too, believe me.

This was spoken before the cross—technically still within the Old-Covenant era He was fulfilling—in which blood on the altar was required (and which He fulfilled, as Hebrews explains). Yes, on the cross the payment was made—“It is finished”—and yet He also appeared in heaven as High Priest at the true mercy seat with His own blood, so the sacrifice would be presented and applied to all who believe (Hebrews 9–10). Correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems to be the argument.

John the Baptist says, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” That links to Leviticus 17:11 (life is in the blood, given on the altar) and to Passover. This is “indirect,” as you say, but Paul’s epistles—his gospel expounded to him by revelation—explain explicitly the ground of justification: “justified by His blood,” “through faith in His blood.” Paul, by the Spirit, pieces together what it all meant: we are justified through the sacrificial blood-atonement of Christ. To have faith in this is to have faith in the gospel and in Jesus. The blood matters because of who He is—the sinless God-Man.

This magnifies His glory. By presenting justification via blood, God grounds our faith not in vague abstraction but in a concrete altar. Even a child can “see” the blood on the mercy seat. That concreteness aids assurance.
You’re right: “faith in the blood,” and even the gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4, is not laid out with the same clarity in the four Gospels; there we see shadows and types. The fuller clarity comes later through Paul in this New-Covenant era opened widely to the Gentiles. To the Jews steeped in Messianic expectation, believing He is the Messiah may have been framed differently within their existing Scriptural categories. To us Gentiles, in a different culture, the dispensation emphasizes grace and apostolic explanation rather than inherited Messianic categories.

I hope that makes sense and helps. A lot is going on—feel free to ask any questions if I was unclear. I don’t expect you to take my word for it; be a good Berean!

This reads like AI wrote this. The grammar, the fake "nice" wording mixed with condescension, and all the em dashes all over the place is classic AI. I feel pretty offended actually... I really don't want to debate/reply to someone who is just going to use an AI generated reply to argue something. I'm arguing with AI logic, not a person. Specially since I've touched on stuff that was re-iterated in your response like I didn't touch on it.

I spent time and effort into research to help you and time and effort into typing out my responses based on my own arguments and I get a response from an AI generated reply with an ending like "be a good Berean!" Like I didn't just spend a bunch of time researching the grammar of the Greek language to help answer your question. That's seriously insulting.

 

[jas3]

I'd agree keeping the original word order would be the way to go because otherwise you'd have to change the object of faith - no?

Is it valid to change the meaning of sentences to translate. I'm confused here.

Word order is a little fluid in Greek since the form of the words gives you information about whether it's a subject or object. προέθετο ὁ θεὸς could just as easily be ὁ θεὸς προέθετο; both mean the same thing. That's why there's some ambiguity in the translation, although I think the way the KJV renders it is fine.