The Friendly Fire Room Presents

Listen And See

Thank you Wanda Barlow for this great idea!

 

Pronouns Metaphors Errors Pt 14

 

Pronouns Metaphors Errors Pt 14

 

To God be the Glory, great things He has done.

mcmtffr.org wishes to acknowledge and thank Derek Konofalski and Rocket Media for making this page:
Mobile Friendly

Pronouns, Metaphors, and Errors

Message
January 25, 2015
Part 14

Today we will complete our look into:
- the figure, ”the blood of Christ” used in Scripture.
- what is the intended meaning of this figure.
- what this figure should call to our minds.

about the blood

By the way, since we should not burden ourselves with complex terminology whenever avoidable; after a few slides, we will completely scrap the term metalepsis, and just say “double-metonymy”.

Let’s begin our examination of the double-metonymy“the blood of Christ”. Arranged together, the following structure represents the syntax of the double-metonymy, and for the figure “the blood of Christ”: syntax: the blood{ x ( y )} of Christ

Please take a closer look.

syntax: the blood{ x ( y )} of Christ

Remember our visual demonstration characterizing the metonymy and the double-metonymy?

box #1{ } of Christ

I coined this syntax to symbolically represent the nested relationship of three named boxes, demonstrating how box #3 (the box we actually expected) is contained in box #2, and box #2 (including #3) are included in box #1.

The figure, “the blood of Christ”, consists of three elements (boxes = words), including two stages of
relationship with one another: “

diagram on the blood

The figure, “the blood of Christ”, consists of three elements (boxes = words), including two stages of
relationship with one another:

diagram on the blood

The figure, “the blood of Christ”, consists of three elements (boxes = words), including two stages of
relationship with one another:

diagram of the blood

In a given metonymy, just as with a math expression, it is always up to us to evaluate the information we are given, in order to determine the identity of x and y.

In fact, this is a requirement all figures of speech have in common with one another; once the reader has discovered he is dealing with a figure of speech in the text, it is his responsibility to evaluate the information given him, in order to determine the writer’s original intent for the figure.

Today, I’m first going to skip to result of the evaluation process required to identify the words x and y, so as to decipher our double-metonymy,“the blood of Christ”. After that I intend to help you learn how to think through the mental processes required to arrive at valid answers, and how to practice to become proficient at deciphering metonymies for yourself.

Diagramic wordse

Solution: “the blood{ death( atonement)} of Christ” This double-metonymy is a very powerful figure of speech.

Notice there’s a whole lot going on within this double-metonymy. While “blood” is given for “death”, a special kind of relationship exists between the words “blood” and “death”. The relationship is not one of “representation” as with the metaphor, nor is it one of “resemblance” as with the simile; the word or noun of the metonymy figure is used instead of another word, to which it stands in a certain kind of relation.

I had been searching for a single-key-word to clearly describe the kind of relationship involved, and I finally found it: the special kind of relationship between the words of metonymies is one of“affinity”! In order for the relationship between nouns to qualify as a metonymy, and not a metaphor, nor a simile, there must be a certain, easy to recognize, “affinity” between them.

(Q) What does affinity mean?

(A) …a natural accord with, in harmony with, in a close relationship with. A few synonyms come close to describing this kind of relationship; namely, kinship, association, link, and correspondence.

If you are technically inclined, it might help to say that a metonymy requires “a semantic affinity between the two words”. So, the link, the affinity, the critical relationship between blood and death, not only speaks to the fact that blood-shedding contributed to His death, but that His death was characteristically a blood-shedding kind of death.

We cannot stop here. While “blood” is given for “death”, and a special kind of relationship exists between the words “blood” and “death”; in turn, “death” is given for “atonement”, and a special kind of relationship also exists between the words “death” and “atonement”. The affinity relationship between death and atonement, not only speaks to the fact that the death of Christ contributed to the perfect satisfaction of payment for the sins of those He came to save, His atonement was characteristically a death-merited kind of atonement which was required by God, death which He bore in our place, to fully-pay for the debt of our sins.

When we read the words “the blood of Christ”, it should trigger the words, “death”, and especially “atonement”.

About now you should be asking- (Q) Why should anyone use a double-metonymy, why not simply use a single metonymy?

(A) When the logical gap of affinity between two nouns appears to be semantically too wide for a single-metonymy, we can safely operate on the logical assumption that the writer originally intended to use a two-stage metonymy. In this particular instance, when you think about it, it is easy to see a wide semantic gap between “blood” and “atonement”, which is easily bridged by the word “death”. So why not just put “death” for “atonement”? Because the thought of blood gets our attention more than the thought of death; it’s also why stop signs, fire engines, etc. are red. Psychologically, the color red alarms us just as does spilt blood.

OK, we need to at least look at the English translation of the term for the double-metomymy: Greek word metalepsis metalepsis.

The compound term metalepsis in Greek properly means: lepsis- “the act of leaving out a necessary portion” meta- “having association with”. That seems like quite a challenge for a writer:“leave out a necessary portion of some words having an association with other words”, and still have the expression understood by his reader. “To omit a necessary portion” sounds like a paradox; that is, something which seems contradictory, but is nevertheless holds true.

We have just seen how the words, relationships and associations that have been omitted in this expression by the writer, must be supplied by the reader’s mental process, because they constitute a necessary part in order to understand the writer’s expression.

Diagramic printing concerning the Blood of Christ

For example…

Romans 3.25
“Through faith in His blood”:

(Q) How should we then think of this expression?

(A) “through faith in the merits of the atonement accomplished by His blood, where His blood is related to His death and atonement in an all-inclusive relationship of two stages; blood to death, and death

(Q) How should we then think of this expression? to atonement.”

(A) “through faith in the merits of the atonement accomplished by His blood, where His blood is related to His death and atonement in an all-inclusive relationship of two stages; blood to death, and death to atonement.”

Romans 5.9
“Being now justified by His blood”:

i.e., by His blood, His death, and His atonement, inclusively, by affinity.

Ephesians 1.7
“Redemption through His blood”:

i.e., by affinity, through the instrumental means of the merits of His atoning death and blood-shedding.

In each of these examples of Scripture, we need to understand that the word “blood” cannot be said to“represent” the words “death” and “atonement”. A word that is used to “represent” is the work of the metaphor, not the metonymy.

A metaphor is a word that “stands in the place” for another word through “representation”.

Think of a picture of someone placed on their desk-chair. The picture is not a necessary part of the person, nor is it a direct link to them by any relationship of affinity.

The picture does not connect with the person in a relationship of affinity. You are looking at a representation of the person.

A metonymy is a word that “connects” us to another word through a “relationship of affinity” or “close association”.

Think of a person sitting in their desk-chair. The person is your uncle Bill, but the nameplate on his desk says Dr. William Tell.

The character of the way you will relate to this man today will be determined by your choice of the name change for “the man”, either “uncle” or “doctor”. If “uncle” is given for “this man”, it means you intend to relate to him in your conversation which will include will things having an affinity with“uncle ways”.If “doctor” is given for “this man”, you intend to relate to him in your conversation in terms having an affinity with “doctor ways”.Either name, “uncle” or “doctor” implies necessary parts of the person, each having its own characteristic
affinity with “the man”.

A metaphor is a word that “stands in the place” for another word through “representation”.

A metonymy is a word that “connects” us to another word through a “relationship of affinity” or “close association”.

If “blood of Christ” is given for “death( atonement) of Christ”, the writer of Scripture intends for you to relate to the blood of Christ in ways that include the affinity that His blood and His death have (especially) with His atonement.

Many will be surprised on the Day of Judgment when they discover that it was just as the Word of God says; only the righteousness of Christ is able to save you.All men are sinners and no one can save himself. God is just, so He must punish sin; but He is also merciful, moreover gracious, and offers His Son as the perfect sacrifice in order to purchase a place for you in heaven, which He offers to you as the free gift of eternal life.Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One, He is God Incarnate. In order to pay the debt of our sins,
He came from Heaven, having been sent by the Father, where He lived a life of perfect obedience to the Father even unto the shameful death upon the cross in order to pay the debt of your sins.This gift must be received by faith, believing that Jesus’ perfect life and Cross Work was His complete and necessary Atonement for your sins, in your behalf. Faith is a gift that comes by the Power of God the Holy Spirit working in a person’s innermost being. Only the power of God can open your heart to the willingness to have the void within it filled
with the presence of Christ by His Spirit.The Holy Spirit has the authority and power to quicken your dead spirit, to make it come to life.
Only the life of His Spirit’s quickening of your heart will allow the Gospel message of salvation to even make sense to you, to truly “hear” the message and give you the ability, as the Holy Spirit bears witness to Jesus, to recognize your need for forgiveness and restoration, and gain the desire of your heart to be favorably inclined to want to receive Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.If you have not done so before this moment, ask Jesus to forgive you your sins, tell Him you’ve stop trying to be your own savior, and ask Him to come into your life right now, and to give you eternal life. Then, in faith believing, thank Him for the gift that He is giving you, the one He paid for in full in your place, in Jesus’ name,
AMEN

 

Copyright January, 2015
Rev. Jim Craig
All Rights Reserved

Bibliography

Agnes, Michael and Charlton Laird (eds.). Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1996.
Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren (eds.). The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. Germany: Biblica-Druck, 1994.
Benner, Jeff A. The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. College Station, Texas: Virtualbookworm.com Publishing Inc., 2005
Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible; Explained an Illustrated. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2007.
Chapman, Benjamin. Greek New Testament Insert. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977.
Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual of the New Testament. Canada: The Macmillan Company, 1957.

Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1989.
The ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2011.
Metzger, Bruce M. Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek. Princeton, New Jersey, 1977.
Wikipedia contributors. "Xenophon." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 15 Aug. 2014. Web. 19 Aug. 2014.
Wuest, Kenneth S. The New Testament; An Expanded Translation. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992.
Wuest, Kenneth S. (Revised, Donald L. Wise). The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, rev. ed. Chicago, Il: Moody Press, 1982.
Walsh, J. Martyn and Anna Kathleen Walsh. Plain English Handbook: A Complete Guide to Good English, 7th rev. ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: McCormick-Mathers PublishingCompany,1977.

Back to Listen And See

Home