Doesn't Revelation 21 teach cultural continuity? Doesn't it teach that cultural attainments will be part of our life in heaven? Are there any historical readings of the passage that specifically refute this? Are there any commentators that argue explicitly for discontinuity in reference to this passage?
Continuity here refers to the idea that cultural progress and
attainments achieved in this age will continue into the age to come. In other
words, advances in the arts, science, philosophy, architecture and the like
will play a part in our heavenly life. Proponents of this view believe that the
productions of the great artists, particularly those that were God-honouring in
what they produced, men such as Bach and Rembrandt will be part of our life in
heaven.
Obviously these terms are somewhat subjective as others would
cast doubt on the value of Bach and Rembrandt and even question as to whether
or not their works reflect godly principles and represent their application in
the realms of the arts. The concept of continuity has gained particular
traction within the Dominionist sphere of thought that more or less
characterizes and even dominates today's Evangelical movement. Others, have
take the idea further and argue that in heaven we'll even have things like
urban planning, scientific discovery, and investment banking.
Some of this thinking is in reaction to long dominant but
erroneous views of heaven that envision the saints floating in the clouds
strumming harps living out some kind of ethereal existence. Contrary to this
non-material view, the Scriptures speak of resurrected physical bodies located
in a New Heavens and New Earth and the imagery is more closely associated with
that of Eden – but something more than Eden as presented in Genesis. The
strictly ethereal view is clearly in error and yet in addition to being
unbiblical, the continuity view contains real dangers and runs the risk of
falling in Christ's condemnation in John 6 of those who labour for the meat
that perishes, not to mention it becomes a functional repudiation of the values
and ethos taught in the Sermon on the Mount. Continuity implies that you can in
fact take it with you – at least in some capacity. Worldly concern becomes a
hallmark of piety and apparently heaven isn't all that different from the world
we now know and experience.
To answer the first of the inquiries, offhand I cannot think
of any historical interpretations that specifically
emphasize 'discontinuity' in the Revelation 21 passage – in the exact manner as
I do below. But at the same time the Kuyperian Neo-Calvinist continuity reading
is also relatively new and without much in the way of historical precedent. And
so we should not expect earlier commentators to explicitly refute the Kuyperian-continuity error as prior to the late nineteenth century it more or less did not exist
apart from the Dutch Calvinistic matrix from which it emerged. And yet perusing
old commentaries within the English language Anglo-American sphere, the general
take is more in keeping with what could be called a non-Kuyperian,
non-continuity view, even if at times somewhat unelaborated.
There is a fundamental difference in mindset at work when it
comes to how one approaches these passages. I recall many years ago listening
to Greg Bahnsen refer to James 1.17 and I picked up on the fact that he assumed
the 'good gifts' referred to by the apostle are cultural, technological, and
medical attainments. Those things may be reckoned 'gifts' (or not), but reading
the passage I find it doubtful that's what James is even talking about. A
practically-focused epistle to be sure, the apostle does not seem to have a
very positive view of this age and as such culture is not in his purview.
In dealing with Revelation 21, there's the question of
prophetic idiom and given that John utilizes Old Testament patterns of language
and prophetic imagery one can make a case for such idiom being employed with
regard to the statements referring to 'nations' and their 'glory'. In other
words, the language is metaphorical and hyperbolic, meant to create an image in
the mind related to glory, power, and even a degree of pomp (associated with
victory and submission) which certainly is appropriate when referencing the eschatological
Kingdom.
Spiritual and eschatological categories are frankly beyond
our ability to perceive and thus must be spoken of in terms of analogy and
language the immediate audience could in some sense apprehend. Evoking Isaiah
64, Paul in 1 Corinthians 2.9 makes this very clear. These heavenly or
eschatological truths are not discovered by means of philosophical inference
and deduction but rather are revealed to us by the Spirit – in terms that effectively
hint at what is meant. They are terms and categories we can apprehend to a
degree but cannot hope to comprehend or interact with on a philosophical (inferential
and deductive) level.
Second, a general hermeneutical rule is to establish
principles in the clear passages and then work toward those more obscure. This
principle is not absolute and you can get into trouble with it just as you can
with the oft invoked Analogy of Scripture. A commitment to coherence can
sometimes be utilized to flatten or even cancel out doctrines (or aspects of
doctrine) in order to create an airtight philosophical-theological system. I
don't like theology riddled with problem texts. It's a sign of a flawed
methodology and a tendency toward false prioritisation. The Revelation passage
isn't a problem but I would say that given the overwhelming data in the New
Testament regarding the world, the dangers of the world, and the like, not to
mention explicit passages like the one in 2 Peter 3.10, we should pause at an
interpretation that is tantamount to saying the works of men are somehow
destined to survive the eschaton or can be sanctified – and thus by implication
we are called to focus specifically on the redemption of cultural elements.*
This entire discussion is born of Dominionist thought and its
antecedents found in the doctrinal-ethical consequences of the Constantinian
Shift and more recently the Magisterial Reformation's doctrine of Vocation. If
they are shown to be erroneous, the entire discussion becomes moot. The
combining of these impulses is the driving force behind contemporary ways of
thinking about these cultural issues and the subsequent continuity questions
they generate. The 'worldview' paradigm (born of this unhappy union) is assumed
wherein Scriptural principles are combined with spheres of knowledge from the
world in order to flesh out the Kingdom in terms that range far beyond anything
hinted at in Scripture and frankly in contradiction to what is revealed.
Utilizing philosophical methodology, the spheres of worldly and Christian
knowledge are synthesized and the end result is referred to as a 'Christian' or
even a 'Biblical' worldview. And yet it's not. In reality it represents an
epistemological compromise, and stands in stark contrast with Paul's
deconstruction of philosophy and worldly epistemology in the opening chapters
of 1 Corinthians. This is something I have touched on repeatedly for many
years.
Beginning with a flawed reading of Genesis 1 that fails to
properly take the implications of the Fall into account (and what the
significantly modified 'mandate' of Genesis 9 says to that end), this school of
thought proceeds according to the false notion that the creation as it stands
is still in a state of 'good' and is thus redeemable as opposed to being under
curse and therefore doomed to perish. Matter is not intrinsically evil of
course (a point that must be made as we are often charged with this calumny), but
this age is subject to not only to vanity as the apostle says but to decay and
death and as such it is destined to perish in a cataclysm of fiery judgment and
be replaced by a New Heavens and New Earth – the Kingdom in eschatological form
which in some capacity is already extant and accessible to Christians by means
of the Spirit. Worldview teaching which seeks to redeem that which is fallen
and cursed not only fails in its claims of being Biblical, it actually
represents a form of epistemological and ethical syncretism and can be quite
dangerous. Worse, unbelievers identified as enemies of Christ and dead in their
trespasses and sins now (somehow) contribute to the building of the Kingdom and
can be trained (as it were) to think and live as Christians though hypocrites
under the power of Satan and still lost. We can point to numerous examples in
the realms of social ethics, economics, and the like where the end of result of
'Biblical Worldview' ends up cancelling out explicit Biblical commands and
sanctifying not just the world but in many cases it provides rationalizations
and justifications for evil – especially in the realm of the sword and the coin.
----
*On a related note, it's certainly rather interesting that the traditional and historical read of the verse in 2 Peter 3 is now under attack by modern 'inerrantists' who seek to reconstruct the text by trusting in dubious manuscripts and even more dubious methodologies of text reconstruction – which imply that the text the Church has possessed has been incomplete and at times erroneous. There are many Dominionists that would love to dispense with the historical reading of 2 Peter 3. Hence the latest reworking of the Revised Standard Version known as the ESV has become quite popular and there are newer and even more dangerous and dubious readings coming down the pike that are driven by speculative algorithms as opposed to anything rooted in an extant text. These proponents of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) are revealed as not true inerrantists at all, but promulgators of Textual Criticism that have broken not just with historical views of Scripture, but in many cases their own Confessional traditions. Posing as stalwarts and conservatives, they are sowing seeds of future error and even apostasy. Combine this erroneous view of the text of Scripture with doctrines like Dominionism, Worldview, and eschatological continuity, and you have a formula for disaster.