Over the years I have heard various appeals to the Book of Revelation as some kind of guide or normative template for New Testament worship. Usually those who appeal to this line of reasoning wish to move their particular congregation (or perhaps denomination) in a High Church direction. Revelation's liturgical imagery is certainly lavish and one can easily make a case for vestments, incense, candles and the like.
But is this line of reasoning a result of proper hermeneutics? Failing to take into account the nature of Revelation and the apocalyptic mode in which it is written, this line of reasoning proves too much. The end result is something akin to an Eastern Orthodox service which doesn't necessarily disprove the argument, but for most it gives reason to pause.
In addition to the argument proving too much the appeal is revealed to be arbitrary. If the Book of Revelation as normative argument is sound, then it's not just robes and incense - it's much more.
For example we have thrones, altars, swords, keys, gemstones, crowns, vials, censers, harps, trumpets, measuring sticks, olive trees, sickles, horses, winepresses, chains, and many more elements could be added to this list. What's the standard used to determine which can or ought to be used in the meeting of the Church? Which elements in the visions are liturgical or liturgically normative and which are not?
Are they metaphors? If so, what's the basis for saying so? And how do we determine what elements are meant to be understood symbolically and which are meant to be prescriptive? Those who are argue for the Revelation-as-liturgy example are quickly exposed as being arbitrary in their choices and subjective in their hermeneutical methodology.
This approach functionally denies the apocalyptic context and style of the book which leans on and heavily combines various Old Testament images with New Testament motifs and doctrinal concepts. Similar to the prophetic idiom and prophetic perspective we encounter in Old Testament apocalyptic and prophetic visions in general, Revelation is unique in its hybrid style of presentation - foreshadowing, foretelling and unveiling by utilising the forms of the obsolete Old Covenant. It's interesting because in a way (as something of a hybrid form) the Book could be said to transcend the Jewish-Gentile divide within the Early Church - although it must be said that first and second century Jewish Christians would have an advantage in understanding the images.
Additionally it must be noted that such an arbitrary appeal to using elements rooted in the Mosaic Law demonstrates a failure to understand not only its context vis-à-vis the New Testament, but the holistic and covenantal nature of the Law itself. The Law stands or falls as a package or unit. There's no basis for going back to the Law and borrowing a little here or appropriating a little there. It's either in effect or its not and clearly the New Testament teaches it's not. It has been fulfilled and annulled. Needless to say this liturgical view also rests upon either a rejection (or at best a confusion) of New Testament teachings regarding the Church's relationship to the Old Covenant.
In the end we can only conclude that the Revelation-liturgy appeal is the result of flawed hermeneutics.
Further, much of the imagery that's appealed to by Revelation-liturgy advocates involves the Divine Council - or imagery concerning the Throne Room of God. While a case can be made that our worship is transcendently (and certainly eschatologically) connected to the Divine Council or Assembly there's no basis to suggest that we're to try and emulate that imagery in our meetings.
In fact even Old Testament worship wasn't attempting to do that. The Holy of Holies is the closest to this concept with the Ark representing the footstool of the Throne of God. While the flanking guardian cherubim are depicted, the larger presence of the Council is not. Through the prophets we sometimes are granted a hint of this larger assembly. The larger imagery though implied is not included in the Temple, and there's no basis to suggest its presence needs to be visibly represented in the New Covenant assembly. More could be said on this point about what the Church is doing and what (in cosmic terms) its meeting represents but again, there's no basis to suggest that we should either attempt to utilise or emulate Old Testament imagery or use Revelation as some kind of baseline or prescriptive example.
This discussion reminds me of an interchange I had more than twenty years ago with a seminary professor, one I have reported elsewhere. He argued that the validity of choirs could be made by the utilisation of Biblical Theology (or Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics). We find choirs in the Old Testament and therefore the argument against them is patently wrong.
The only thing his argument demonstrated was that he didn't understand what Biblical Theology was - and I must say I pity his students. As I've reiterated on numerous occasions, the argument against choirs (or other Old Testament elements being included in New Testament worship) is rooted in Biblical Theology/Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics. Choirs were part of the Levitical order and have no more place in New Testament worship than priestly robes, sacrifices on altars, or circumcision. They're part of an order that has been fulfilled and thus abrogated. In addition to Judaizing, their presence indicates a hermeneutic that is arbitrary and subjective. People want it and so they appeal to the Old Testament but not on the basis of principle or with any kind of consistency. While this also represents poor Systematic Theology, the methodology (generally speaking) lends to this much more than a Redemptive-Historical method.
Rather than treat the Scriptures as a data set to be organised into various systemic headings, we instead read it as an unfolding story, as revealed truth pointing us to Christ - His Person and His work. The lead up to His Incarnation involves types and symbols which are didactic in nature. After his death, resurrection, and ascension we find ourselves in a different epoch, that of the New Covenant. Things necessarily changed and it's important, yea critical to take these changes into account. As New Covenant believers we necessarily look to the apostles as our guide in reading and understanding the Old Testament and it's critical that we take into account their discussions of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments - one of the most seminal and formative issues in all of theology.
Understanding this development and the prioritisation of the New Testament as being normative we can then dispense with the method of hunting and pecking in search of proof texts in the service of theological loci or attempts to rationalise desired practices.
Likewise, we understand that Revelation (while taking priority over Old Testament prophecy) is not normative in terms of Church practice - viz., in terms of ecclesiology or liturgy. Cast in Old Testament terms and imagery, Revelation informs Old Testament prophecy even while it borrows from those very prophecies. Its unique in its circularity and yet a basic grasp of New Testament doctrinal fundamentals informs us that such a book while true, canonical, and authoritative, is not meant to be viewed as prescriptive for the New Testament assembly - all the more when the New Testament, in clear didactic passages 'spiritualizes' the Temple imagery and applies it in a true and yet non-literalistic fashion.
The imagery in Revelation is glorious and inspiring and yet given its Old Testament cast there is still an element of shadow to it. This is appropriate as the things being revealed are frankly beyond our ability to fully grasp. The imagery is also presented in multi-perspectival and often achronological or asynchronous form - the repetition and reiteration of visions from different perspectives is something we also encounter in books like Daniel and Zechariah. If the apostle Paul heard words that are unspeakable or inexpressible and not lawful for a man to utter, if John was told to not record certain words and events, and if Daniel's inquiries were quashed - then that tells us that the secret things belong to God and there are things beyond what we can know, need to know, and are permitted to know. Revelation is an accommodation on the part of the Holy Spirit and it is by the Holy Spirit that we can even hope to have some understanding of what is revealed. It is folly to think that these shadowy and necessarily metaphoric unveilings are meant for us to emulate let alone literally replicate in terms of liturgical dramatization. The road to justifying High Church practice is rooted in tradition not Scripture. It is a story of compromise and innovation and a rejection of the concept of Sufficiency - without which claims to Sola Scriptura are effectively meaningless.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2015/07/criticisms-of-klinean-republication.html