Genre and Hermeneutics in relation to the book of Revelation

Genre is certainly the dominating hermeneutic these days in interpreting the book of Revelation, no more clearly evident than among evangelicals, however evangelical commentaries frequently ignore the need for clarifying exactly what this apocalyptic being spoken of is [1] and how a lack of clarification of apocalyptic impacts ones understanding of the book of Revelation, leaving aside the ever present problems of defining genre itself. [2]


Nowhere is this confusion clearer than when scholars question how we can claim the book of Revelation is apocalyptic when some 30 of the 31 base characteristics used to define apocalyptic could just as rightly be said to be the marks of prophecy! Indeed the naming of the author of the book, [3] which Revelation does, and the use of epistolary sections which the book of Revelation also has, marks it more as prophecy than apocalyptic! The nail in the coffin here is that the opening verse which declares it is prophecy! In the face of this many today are opting to say the book is a mixture [4] of these genres while others go so far into the nether region as to proclaim that its meaning is to be determined by comparing it with non-biblical apocalyptic texts!

Robert Thomas notes “most distinctive of all, however, is the fact that the book calls itself a prophecy ( 1:3, 22:7,10,18,19 ).” [5] To neglect, or ignore such a clear pronouncement is to undermine all ones attempts to understand Scripture.

Again Robert Thomas gives all who study the book of Revelation an astute reminder when he states in his Commentary on Revelation that too often we meet ‘genre override’. We do well to heed his warning as already far too many purported scholars are relying upon genre when the exegesis and consideration of the text in context fails to meet their preconceived theology. What we encounter is amillennialist’s arbitrarily resorting to “apocalyptic genre” to justify not taking the text literally even when there are no grammatical indicators to suggest a given passage is not literal. It is basic hermeneutics to take careful note of such indicators as the words “like” or “as” in the text, for example as seen in chapter 13:2, or when the text already clearly indicates that what is said is figurative as seen in chapter 11 which explicitly says “figuratively called Sodom and Egypt” where also ‘their Lord was crucified’ 11:8 or again when the text declares to the reader that a “sign” is being given as in Rev 12:1, Indeed in Rev 1:1 we are already told that it was signified to his servants, that is, “shown by a sign”. Again, just consider the usage of numbers in chapter 21. Many have found issue with the number 1000 in chapter 20, yet the text frequently clarifies exactly the literal nuance to be understood when a number is not symbolic, as in chapter 21 verse 17 it tells us it was 144 cubits thick by man’s measurement! And in 21:16 it has told us “found to be 12000 stadia in length” and height and width. Given the careful use of such grammatical markers or when the author has repetitive use of the same number without any contextual indication that it is to be taken symbolically, one should be hesitant to assume a number is symbolic. [6]

The arbitrariness of interpreting Revelation literally at one point and then symbolically at another without any grammatical justification is evident when genre driven interpreters get to chapter 11. Most Commentators I have read take the two witnesses as two people. After all the context clearly explains, they are literally two. It says in verse 4 “they are the two olive trees and the two lampstands”. They are protected from harm vs 5, they are crucified in Jerusalem 11:8. And they are two prophets vs 10. Yet on their [7] hermeneutic one could just as easily say they are symbolic, that the point being made is legal witness, for 2 are required to stand as legal witness against another. Lo and behold are we surprised when Gentry develops this thought by saying the two witnesses “probably represent a small body of Christians who remained in Jerusalem to testify against” the temple. “They are portrayed as two, in that they are legal witnesses to the covenant curses.” [8] The trouble is that the reader is at a loss to determine much of what the book of Revelation is on about when there are so many possible interpretations. The incredible diversity found in those that advocate apocalyptic Genre indicate the problems remains of deciding which interpretation is likely. Here, the number two on Gentry’s interpretation means “a small number”. If they are to be taken as “a small number in Jerusalem”, then what historical evidence do we have of them being crucified ( Rev 11:8 ) in AD70, which is also what Gentry, a Preterist says the book of Revelation relates.

Commentators such as Mickelsen, Gordon D Fee & Douglas Stuart, Leland Ryken, M Robert Mulholland, Beasley-Murray, Mounce and Leon Morris ( those who combine a idealist and futurist approach ) [9] arbitrarily switch in their hermeneutical stride from Symbolic or figurative to literal and so reveal a dire hermeneutical inconsistency. Too often they take this approach and yet are silent in regard to providing justification for doing this.[10] It is hermeneutical gymnastics and further, methodologically undermines a rational approach to God’s revealed Word. [11] Appeal to apocalyptic genre just won’t overcome firstly, the subjective manner of being literal on whim, often ignoring context and secondly, the prevailing differences of a multiplicity of varying interpretations between them on such passages meaning. We see this frequently also in Paul Barnett’s book ‘Apocalypse: Now and Then’: We acknowledge his stated aim is to provide a “devotional commentary” for families and individuals to read, however, declaring Revelation to be a confusing book, and reinforcing this in the mind of the reader by saying that one needs a key to decipher it, he should provide a little more justification for some of his more questionable claims or at least admit there are people who differ with him on these points.

For example his book follows an idealist / future interpretation and his [ layered ] seven fold structure follows closely that argued by Hoekema with his recapitulative theory of Revelation which finds its genesis in Augustine.

As to this recapitulative theory evidenced in the structure, one fraught with disagreement, one commentator astutely asks ”why a 7 fold structure and not 3 or 10?” [12]
Concerning the recapitulative theory, it is Hoekema himself who admits that if you don’t assume that Rev 20:1-6 describes what takes place during the history of the Church then you would need to admit that the 1000 years reign of Christ coming after his return, and it is only when one assumes 20:1-6 describes the history of the church that it follows that Revelation follows a progressive parallelism structure. [13] The question is “can one come to the meaning of the text that Hoekema gives us on a natural contextual reading of the text”? If not, it isn’t much of an unveiling!


Another serious deficit not even addressed is the problem acknowledged by commentators on how you understand the two resurrections in Revelation 20. Can they plausibly be understood as spiritualizing the first resurrection, whilst taking the second one literally as a physical resurrection? Are people who make one symbolic and the other literal really dealing with the context in any grammatically meaningful way? I believe not.

Lastly, I find Wood's arguments on how to deal with numbers especially relevant given how Barnett lays so much interpretive weight upon his meaning of numbers in the book of Revelation. Again Barnett fails to explain why numbers mean what he says they mean, and this justification is crucial when there are Greek expressions available for John to declare something to be “a very long time” without using the numeric 1000. Woods points out [14] that the phrase, “ a long time” has been used by Matthew in Matt 25:19 to “depict the duration of the Lord’s absence prior to his second advent”, and given its context in Matthew this is indeed intriguing, so much so that one might have expected John to use it here. Even in the book of Revelation itself, John has used a phrase to indicate the temporal shortness of time as in his use of “a little while”, which occurs in Rev 17:11 and his use of it again in Rev 12:12 where it is said of satan that “he is filled with the fury because he knows that his time is short.” Instead of using “symbolic numbers” it seems to me to suggest that John is quite deliberate in both his use of such grammatical temporal phrases and in his choice of numbers.  

Ryken’s comments on how one approaches the book of Revelation is characteristic of many preaching evangelicals today who see it as combining not merely the idealist and furturist but also the preterist and continuous historical. In essence he wants to have it all ways. He says: “Because of the literary form of the book, which portrays events symbolically, its relevance extends throughout the history of the world.” Thomas pg 89

Even whilst saying the book portrays events symbolically, he yet wants to keep references to the second coming of Jesus as literal. So while looking at chapters 4-18 in a very symbolic way, having interpreted so much of it under the idealistic rubric, [15] when they come to chapter 19:11-16 they want to see it as the literal physical return of Jesus to earth. If they remained true to their idealistic hermeneutic they would see Christ’s coming as metaphor for peoples moral and spiritual enlightenment much as the 19th Century liberals did with Jesus taking him purely as an enlightened man with a true sense of God. Of course taking chapter 19 in this way would mean it’s only about personal transformation and illumination, which is the end is pure mysticism.

The above is just a small investigation of the issues involved.

References:
[1] See Michael G. Michael Macquarie University, At. S.W Australia The Genre of the Apocalypse:What are they saying now? Bulletin of Biblical Studies Vol 18 Jul-Dec 1999


[2] See David E Aune ‘The Apocalypse of John and the problem of genre’ Semeia 36 ( 1986 ) pg 66

[3] Thus contravening apocalyptic as pseudonymity. See Robert Thomas ‘Literary Genre and Hermeneutics of the apocalypse’. Pg 82. See also his Wycliffe Commentary on Revelation. Tmsj2e.pdf

[4] This is seen in saying it is Prophecy and Apocalyptic and Epistle. Cf C. L Blomberg ‘NT Genre criticism for the 1990’s’ Themelios 15/2 ( Jan / Feb 1990 ) pg 45. By conflating the three, who knew what it was saying until the 1980’s and thereafter?

[5] Robert Thomas ‘Literary Genre … ‘ pg 82

[6] Yet Paul Barnett does exactly this, ignoring context and the books use of numbers and without any supporting argument unilaterally declares numbers mean what he posits. So 1000 in Rev 20 is “a great number or a very long period”, indicating he takes it as both numeric and as temporal! That on the face of it is mind boggling.

[7] Ammillenialists for example.

[8] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 421-22. This is an approach exemplified in the New Hermeneutic. See D A Carson. ‘The Gagging of God’ pg 106

[9] See R Thomas ‘Literary Genre..’ pg 88

[10] Apart from a bland appeal to “genre” as apocalyptic.

[11] In other words it exhibits irrationalism. As to the accusation that my approach in this summary is mired in modernism that rejoinder will be dealt with in another article, but I believe others have pointed out the failures of postmodernism etc eg D A Carson in ‘the Gagging of God’ and William J Larkin’s book ‘Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics.

[12] See Steve Lewis, ‘Theological Presuppositions and the Interpretation of Revelation’. Conservative Theological Journal August 2003 pg 4.

[13] See Steve Lewis, ‘Theological Presuppositions and the Interpretation of Revelation’. Conservative Theological Journal August 2003. pg 3

[14] Andy Woods pg 9. 'A Case for the futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation' www.pretrib.org/data/pdf/woods-ACaseFortheFuturistl.pdf  and 85.pdf
[15] So Leon Morris sees the trumpet plagues as something that has been “true throughout the ages and it will be until the End.” Morris Revelation pg 123 cited in Thomas ‘literary genre ..’ pg 89

Revelation 1:1-3

Revelation 1 v1-3.
By Gary Wearne
Author's Note: The following is a sermon outline for an introductory series on Revelation.

Introduction.
· Most neglected book
· Portrayed by many as difficult to understand, mysterious. Perplexing.
However, three things about the book of Revelation confront our neglect to come to grips with what it's teaching.
a) It's part of the bible, God's Word. READ 1:2. This is the very Word of God.

b) The books very name challenges us - the word "Revelation" comes from the greek word apokalyypsus in verse 1, and it means unveiling. A revealing.
God is not here trying to cloud what He is saying.
He's not in the business of smoke and mirrors.
It's certainly not like the sound bites we get from our politicians - a lot of words, but no content, nothing of substance being said.
In this book God is speaking to us to reveal !

c) God tells us that he who reads ! and those who hear! And those who keep these things written - obey them - are blessed 1:3
It's not an obligation but rather something to your profit!
A Christian is promised blessing from God himself upon reading or hearing or obeying this prophecy. This book of Revelation is prophecy.
And it's not to be ignored merely for being prophecy!
Yet that's the attitude of many in the Church these days. Sure, we had a period in the 70's and 80's where many went overboard on prophecy. Still that doesn't absolve our present neglect of this part of God's Word!

Now what is this blessing were promised?
First let's be clear it's not merely a corporate blessing being spoken of here.
It's not as though we as a group - as Australians are blessed by being born in this "lucky country" that offers to all so many opportunities. No way, the first blessing mentioned in 1:3 is for the individual, the one who reads this prophecy. The "he" there is singular.
Then it goes on to speak of hearers - plural. And it's plural again referring to those who obey - keep what's written in this prophecy.

Next we need to pick up that what is being spoken about in the book of Revelation requires continual study.
It's not as though one can read it through once and fathom the depths of Revelation in one enormous meal, it's not as though it's a blessing that can be received once for all and the next time you read a few pages of the book it's no longer a blessing!
Nope the passage says in verse3 that it's blessing is associated with continual reading hearing and obeying. All the participles are in the present tense.
Again we see that our attitude to this book is to be quite different to that which most of us take.
I once spoke to a pastor who was nearing the time of his retirement and he said to me he never preached the book of Revelation because it was too difficult and controversial! Goodness, what do you think God thought of that, he'd failed to see the book as not a mystery but an unveiling and a blessing! How tragic.

In the book of Revelation this blessing is the first of 7. The others are found at 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7 & 14.

So we've seen for whom the blessing is announced, it remains for us to understand what this word blessed means?
John MacArthur in his commentary on Matt 5 has this helpful comment to make about markarios ( blessed ). "means happy fortunate, blissful. Homer used it to describe a wealthy man and Plato used it of one successful in business. Homer and Hesiod spoke of the greek gods as being happy within themselves because they were unaffected by the world of men - who were subject to poverty, disease, weakness, misfortune and death. The fullest meaning of the term, therefore, had to do with an inward contentedness that is not affected by circumstances. This kind of happiness that God desires for His children, a state of joy and well-being that does not depend on physical, temporary circumstances. ( see Phil 4:11-13 )." MacAthur Matthew 1-7 pg 142
Now this gets to the crunch of being blessed. Unfortunately our use of it in our culture misses the rich depth of the Bible term.
We often here the commentators on football describing a player as being blessed. Meaning he's good at his sport. But this falls well short of what the Bible is getting at. It has little to do with outward circumstances.
In fact the word when used in Revelation 14:13 speaks of those martryed - dead for the sake of Christ - being blessed - which means it's quite out of the realm of the physical here and now. Now don't get me wrong. I a not saying you cannot experience this blessedness here and now - obviously from God's Word you can - but its source doesn't arise from outward circumstances such as wealth or a good business or whatever. To get the Bibles perspective it's something one receives from God himself. A contentedness and joy, and feeling of well-being. We can see from the bible that God blesses his people when he bestows on them some gift temporal or spiritual (Gen_1:22; Gen_24:35; Job_42:12; Psa_45:2; Psa_104:24, Psa_104:35).

Now that we've seen the importance of this prophecy let's dwelve just a little bit more this morning into the first 3 verses.

A) In 1:1 we read … This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not the revelation or revelations of John the apostle, sometimes you read in some Bibles that this book is called the revelations of St John - that's wrong.

B) Also "these things which must shortly come to pass" it says. The word used here is tachi - it's the word from which we petrol heads get the word for the tachometer in our car. It's not here speaking of what we mean when we tell our wives "I'll put out the trash shortly, by which we mean when this TV show has finished or I am finished doing what I am doing". Nope, it has to do rather with rapidity of motion - this happens quickly - in the flash of an eye as we say. It isn't speaking then of a point of time in the near future, rather it's about quickness! It's about the rapidity of execution.

Interestingly the same word occurs in Revl 22:20 - turn with me to that verse, understanding the word may help you better get the time perspective right. It's speaking about quickness, not when !

Now back in verse 1 we read something about the man John.
C) Unlike many who gain status by claiming a prophecy from God or a "revelation" - John MacAthur's relates of one man who claims Jesus speaks to him in person - he appears to him in his door whilst he's shaving himself. - well really! Does he stop shaving himself?

See here how John the apostle views himself! He is a servant which is a polite way of rendering slave. Doulos.

And lastly this morning look at verse 3 again…
D) Also in 1:3 we read "For the time is at hand" kairos is the word used and relates to a period of time. Daniel himself mentions the "time of the end" five times in Daniel 8:17; 11:35,40; 12:4,9. The time is also mentioned to be at hand in Revelation 22:10. It speaks of a season of time, not a specific hour ( hora ) or time in general ( chronos ).

Conclusion:
I hope that our introduction to the book of Revelation has challenged any preconceptions we may have held.
And I am hoping that it has spiked your interest in coming to grips with What the Lord lays out for us here.

It will challenge and encourage us - but we hold tightly to the promise this morning that in the study of it, in the reading and hearing there's special blessing to us from God himself.

Let's pray.

What is Worship Pt4 - Critique of Mark Driscoll on Worship

These days you get the opportunity to read a wide variety of perspectives on Worship and on the internet you will find an abundance of mp3’s on the topic. Recently I downloaded and listened to Mark Driscoll speaking on Worship from Revelation chapter 5 in his series on Doctrine.

Now I have much admiration for Mark. I enjoy his enthusiasm and passion and desire to see people come to know the Lord Jesus. The way he preaches reminds me sometimes of Martin Luther in ‘the Bondage of the Will’ in His debate with Erasmus. The same direct hard hitting words of a passionate man enamored by Grace. Mark’s succinct way of stating things are powerful and you and I both need to hear Mark when he declares “Jesus is your friend but in no way your peer.”


I have delighted, learnt from and been challenged by many of Mark’s talks, but I have concerns with his sermon on Revelation 5 as I will discuss below. It is my hope that in his passion shall not be led astray to deception as I believe Rick Warren of Saddleback has been over the last few years. When Rick began his ministry there was a true sense in the movement of God’s Spirit and yet Rick has really gone off track lately, and clearly so from the time of publication of ‘40 days of purpose’. The one true way to guard against such deception is to take heed to godly council of fellow elders who truly can say the truth without fear. Mark, I do hope that those who give you council will take time to direct you in honing your exegetical skills and in preaching. So Mark if you ever get to read this, it is done with utmost concern to be faithful to our Lord Jesus, and so loving of the brethren including you.

To summarize the sermon:
Driscoll if I understand him correctly takes Revelation 5 to express worship of the Lord God. He helpfully draws attention to Romans 1:25 that people either worship God the Creator or created things. Yet it’s not long before he declares that the scroll of Revelation 5 is the Scriptures. This slip may be from the Greek word for scroll being biblion, however I doubt if he made such a simple blunder. Sure that's something we can regrettably all do at times, but if so, then amends must be made. It seems certain he considers the scroll of Revelation 5 to be the Scripture’s however this interpretation has not been taken that way by any Commentator that I have in my half a dozen or more Commentaries on Revelation.
This is not my misreading of Driscoll for he repeats this notion over and over again throughout the sermon. Consider the following excerpt

“Here we see the scriptures come from the hand of the father on his throne exalted in heaven. And the scriptures we are told here come literally from his right hand. His hand of authority and power. The Bible wasn’t just written by the hands of men, it was written by the hand of God. through the hands of men.”
And then he says:

“The scripture originally written down on a scroll. Now the problem is the Father has the scroll, he has the bible in his hand still the promises God has for you and me, save us heal us redeem us. transform us.. conquer enemies of satan sin and death. he will be coming to execute al these great promises of God. on our behalf. The problem is no one is worthy to open the scroll. .. to take the scriptures from the hand of God and deliver them to the people of God. no one is worthy to work of Gods behalf to execute all the promises ..he has given is. John sees this as a pastor, he knows the needs of people, and he’s just devastated. .. this is a crisis, God has all of these desires, these intentions, all of these people he wants to love.. all these promises he has given and there’s no means of executing that on the earth. That’s why Isaiah says God literally stretched out his hand to us in Jesus Christ. This is where this is going to go.”

And later
“And God has sent Jesus. ... “Jesus takes the scriptures from the father..”

The problem here is that this understanding of the scroll is not taken that way by any Commentator I know of. Certainly none that Osborne lists. He gives six understandings of the Scroll on pages 248-249. Commentary on Revelation by Grant R. Osborne, ECNT, 2002.

1. The Lambs Book of Life.
   
2. The Old Testament, especially the torah. [ Note this does not include the New Testament. ]
   
3. The last will and testament containing the inheritance of the saints and sealed with seven seals.
   
4. A divorce bill, ... borrowing Old Testament imagery on the unfaithfulness of Israel.
   
5. The doubly inscribed contract deed.
   
6. A heavenly book containing God’s redemptive plan and the future history of God’s creation.
   

Osborne himself suggest a combination of #5 and #6. John F. Walvoord himself says “the scroll contains the prophesy of impending events to be unfolded in the book of revelation” pg 113, thereby agreeing with Osborne’s point #6.

As an aside, I might point out that taking the scroll as the Scriptures implies all sorts of strange things regarding the sequence of events in the book of Revelation. For it is the lamb slain in chapter 5, and thus who is worthy who takes the scroll, yet the Scriptures have already, well the Old Testament for sure, been given to God’s people!

Indeed Mark follows this illogical path in the next few statements where he says:
“someone needs to take these promises and bring them into human history, to execute them.”

What is Driscoll referring to? The First or Second Advent? Clearly he means the first Advent because he talks of Jesus bringing them into human history, “born of a virgin.”
All this I will leave that for you to ponder.

The point I wish to make is that this is a serious error, equating the scroll here in Revelation 5 with the Scriptures. Now Mark may retort that the term “Scriptures” in the Bible as for eg 2 Tim 3:16 means ‘the writings’ and certainly there in 2 Tim 3 it has to at minimum refer to the Old Testament, but Mark has already said clearly in the sermon that the scroll is the Bible.

Mark is right in pointing out that in heaven God surrounds himself with singing and prayers of the saints. These things are indeed in heaven, yet when referring to chapter 4 one really shouldn’t say that the light and colours are what God surrounds himself with, rather John is using the brilliant colours of the precious stones to describe God himself.
Yet Mark says
“What do you keep close to you? God keeps people, colour, music and prayers close to Him.”

It’s not like the light and colours at a rock concert which is the impression Mark leaves us with.

Indeed Revelation does say the 4 creatures in heaven and the 24 elders do sing a new song in worship of the Lord God, 5:9 yet it’s not merely that song writers can “speak best out of experience and passion and life..” The new song does not come from a song writers experience and passion and life. Rather Song writers need to use their gifts to write theological songs just as we see the content in Revelation 5:9-10 talking about. We need less of the mindless drivel of some Choruses and Hill Song songs. Read the chapter by Paul T. Plew in 'Think Biblically' edited by John MacArthur for a good reminder on this.

Again Mark may differ from me on how one understands Isaiah 11 and I will graciously concede that, even so I would point out that to say the text mentions animals in heaven is to spiritualise the text without any warrant for doing so. It’s a hermeneutical issue, but one I would say makes nonsense of hermeneutics. I will deal with this another time.

So I find a couple of major problems with Mark’s interpretation Revelation 5 which do not edify the saints but lead them into error.

But how does Mark get to that point of teaching error? I have suggested a couple of things above as we dealt with the sermon but I think there’s a couple of areas that cause this and which I believe Mark could change with great benefit.

Some reasons for such a failure in understanding Revelation 5 may be partly due to Mark’s technique in sermon delivery. From what I have seen on the internet his sermons notes that he takes into the pulpit are far too cursory at best. Over at JoshHarris.com we can find the above picture at the top of this blog, an example of Driscoll’s preaching Notes.

Now I am not saying Mark hasn’t put a lot of effort into understanding the text and doing his preparation, but I think because of his short notes and his conversational manner he tends to go off on tangents and actually says things he wouldn’t say with a bit more forethought. He says things off the cuff that are either unhelpful and also at time untrue. A case in point would be his comments in the sermon on Revelation 5 when referring to the 24 elders. He said “24 elders, are the leaders of the Old and New Testament CHURCH!” What this says is that Israel in the Old Testament is the Church, a very common statement found among Amillennial preachers, but impossible to justify Biblically.

I actually like the conversational approach in preaching, but there are dangers to be avoided and unless Mark has a photographic memory he should use better notes. And if he does have a photographic memory then he need to carefully choose his words and do better exegesis.

In Christ
Gary

Atonement – Ransom and Revelation 5

As I have been reading through Grant Osborne’s commentary on the book of Revelation in preparation to properly critique Driscoll’s sermon on Revelation 5 I came across a great statement and a timely reminder from Rev 5:9.
Sure the idea is found elsewhere, and I could have or should have known this from a simple word study. Still it is a timely reminder in a day when so many question so much of the bible's teaching on the Atonement, that here in Revelation it is also so clearly put forth.
“The sacrifice of the Lamb has also purchased a people for God. Combining the imagery of sacrifice and commerce is a centrepiece of NT soteriology. Fiorenza notes, this verb is a commercial metaphor used for the freeing of a prisoner of war from bondage. Jesus death has been a ransom payment through which God has purchased a people for Himself. ( see 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:23; 2 Pet 2:1 Rev 14:3,4. ) The ransom payment is specified 'by your blood' highlighting the sacrificial element.” Pg 260.

So much for those that glibly speak of “the death of Christ at the Father’s hand as divine child abuse.” If they are not really being glib and instead are teaching that this is distasteful, then yes it is, your and my sin is totally offensive to God because it is rebellion against Him, your Creator. I think however that given so much pontificating and rejection of clear teachings on the Atonement in Scripture they are just being downright rebellious. They say they are just trying to advance the debate but they ignore a history of theology that has worked this issue through carefully.

There are many different images for the Atonement in Scripture, and ransom is surely one of them not to be neglected.

In Christ,
Gary