Whether we read "the blood of you" as referring to their vulnerability to persecution, heresy, or abandoning the faith, my point is that in this reference the blood of these elders doesn't atone for anybody else. So, in the same paragraph, why would we read "the blood of his son" as substitutionary atonement?
Rev. Chuck Jones
--- On Wed, 6/30/10, Dennis Goffin <dgoffin@...> wrote:
Chuck, As I read it, when Paul says " I am not responsible for the blood of any of you", he is not referring to persecution but to the fact that he has discharged his responsibility towards them by saving their souls. Or so it seems to me.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]