Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Adam Crumpton
    Jun 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      If a watchman sees the enemy and doesn't sound the warning call, then he
      is guilty of whatever blood is spilled by the enemy. But if he sounds
      the alarm, then he has discharged his duty faithfully and he is not
      guilty of anyone's blood. It is this special circumstance that is being
      highlighted in the speech. Paul watched out and warned the Ephesians
      and now the Ephesian leaders need to watch over and warn their flock.
      The purchasing power of Christ's blood is certainly different both in
      substance and metaphor from that of the Ephesians. In substance because
      Christ's blood represents death, while the Ephesians blood represents
      their lives. Christ's blood represents His death because He has died,
      and as for the Ephesians - blood is a symbol for life only in the living.

      Is the juxtaposition significant, incidental, or accidental? Which ever
      of the three it is, the two types and functions of blood in the passage
      are contrasts cannot be mapped to the semantic object simply because
      they are different.

      > _._,___
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic