*updated 9 April 2022
Even the Old Testament casts doubt on the continuity reading
of Revelation 21. Ecclesiastes, a book that is so problematic for modern
Evangelicalism and Dominionism has its message spun. The end result of their
exegetical machinations is that the world is not given to vanity and corruption
even though Paul forcefully and explicitly reiterates this point in Romans 8
and elsewhere argues that this world in its state of curse is subject to
temporality. This is in contrast with the eternal (and thus ultimately true) nature
of the eschatological Kingdom. That which is temporal is impermanent. This is
not Gnosticism opposing matter or the material world or suggesting that it is
illusion. It's a state of existence resulting from the Fall of Man and the
curse God has placed on the world – not matter as matter, but this world which includes its fallen
matter subject to decay and death, a matter sundered from its spiritual
moorings as it were.
The world as it now is
has been divided as revealed in the Dothan episode of 2 Kings 6.15-17 among
many others. The fundamental reality of existence has been severed by the Fall
and now only those with eyes to see are able through the Spirit to experience
the heavenly realm which exists alongside (or perhaps beyond) this
Fall-afflicted present evil age.
The New Heavens and Earth are material but made (it would seem)
of a spiritual stuff as it were. We don't know to what extent the world changed
with the Fall – or rather how Eden 'was' before the Fall. It's all guesswork to
some extent and yet a case can be made that the kind of spiritual-physicality
witnessed in Christ post-resurrection hints at what we might expect – a
material world to be sure, but not one like our own, not one subject to the
same laws we know and cannot conceive of existence apart from. Imagine a world
if you will in which Eden is reborn and the vision seen by Elisha's servant are
one and the same, the effects of the Fall are removed. That's a vision that can
haunt me in the dead hours of the night and inspire me to worship and wonder –
a vision that certainly trivialises the things the world chases after and
counts important. It's the kind of vision that overawed Paul and I'm sure drove
him to despise worldly care and concern. Trying to sanctify urban architecture,
or structuring business plans to make them (supposedly) part of heavenly life
is not.
Staying in the Old Testament, several of these points come
together in Isaiah's prophetic discourse found in chapter 55. The futility of
earthly pursuits rooted in worldly wisdom is contrasted with spiritual
epistemology and the mystery of Divine knowledge which can only be revealed by
means of the Spirit and faith (and the repentance and brokenness it implies).
True treasure is born of heaven, a point reiterated by Christ 'the Holy One of
Israel' in his Sermon on the Mount.
The Kingdom of Heaven is the realm of the holy. If it comes
not by observation, if it's righteousness, peace, and joy in the Spirit, if one
must be regenerate to see it, if it is eschatological (of the Age to Come) and
specifically contrasted with This Age, then the continuity argument seems
highly problematic – a point also made somewhat explicit in Paul's discourses
in Romans 8 and 2 Corinthians 4-5, repeatedly contrasting this world with its
temporality and futility with that of heaven and its eternity.
Is there any basis to argue that the works of the world can
be sanctified? Does the New Testament teach us to expect that the Spirit will
work through the syncretism of worldview? Do believers collaborating with and
standing on the shoulders of unbelievers produce cultural works that are now
reckoned holy and part of the Kingdom? Some seem to think so but not only is
there a dearth of textual evidence, the entire tone and tenor of the New
Testament seems to militate against this notion – even to the point that the
mere suggestion seems absurd and flies in the face of the wall of antithesis
the Scriptures posit between spiritual knowledge and that of the lost world.
Paul says as much in 1 Corinthians 5 when he dismisses the idea that we as
Christians should judge the world as it is doomed and God alone can judge it.
There is no notion even hinted at that this state of affairs is likely to
change or that somehow aspects of the present age can be redeemed or (somehow)
sanctified.
Finally I think Revelation 21.27 elucidates the nature of the
statements being made. This is usually the case. The answer is in the text
itself. When read carefully we note a contrast between the things cast out and
the things (as it were) allowed in. This seems to elaborate the nature of the
'glory of the nations' referred to previously. And what do we find? That which
enters in, presumably 'the glory of the nations' is not a 'what' but a 'they' –
they which are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. The glory of the nations are
those within said nations redeemed and forged anew by the work of the Holy
Spirit. This is not about culture.
In the end I think the passage is speaking loosely in
metaphorical, hyperbolic, and even symbolic terms, which is in keeping with the
patterns of prophetic idiom seen throughout the prophetic writings in the Old
Testament. Second, I believe the true glory being referred to is not in
reference to cultural attainments or treasures but rather those who have been
wrought of the Holy Spirit, the saved of those nations who are in the end the
only true and lasting glory those nations produced. The so-called glories of
Christendom will be revealed as vanity and idolatry and in many cases that
which men glory in will be revealed as their shame and condemnation.
We are told to love not the world or the things of the world.
We are told to lay up treasures in heaven and this is contrasted with a world
of corruption. We are exhorted to continually meditate on, reflect on, and even
long for heaven. There is no emphasis in the New Testament on the development
of culture and the notion of continuity is not only an exegetical stretch
rooted in a host of assumptions, but there are many more verses that seem to
explicitly contradict this notion.
Culture is a fine thing and even a fallen world can produce many
things of beauty and is capable at times of evoking the sublime. These
experiences will be vastly different for Christians as opposed to
non-believers. In terms of industrial and technological attainment many 'goods'
have been produced and yet often for every problem solved and perceived
advancement, two more problems are created. Contrary to the deluded Jewish
dreams of the Dominionist and Postmillennial sects, the overwhelming and
pervasive ethos of the New Testament with regard to this age is one of pessimism.
This does not mean we as Christians are to be pessimistic. We press on in hope
but we do not put our hope in this age or some notion that this age can be
fixed or can in any way emulate Zion. The vision of the Dominionists is in
actuality one of pessimism, a 'victory' re-defined from Scriptural terms and
watered down. Their labours for that which is perishing is a depressing
prospect and can in no way counter or undo the effects of the Fall.
They may mock the words of the late J Vernon McGee and while
that old fundamentalist erred on many points and was rather inconsistent on
this one, he was nevertheless right (in the broad strokes) when he said – you
don't polish brass on a sinking ship. It wasn't as careful of a statement as it
might have been and can be misleading but the spirit behind it is correct. As
Christians we do good in the world to be sure but not with a view toward fixing
this world, let alone redeeming it. This is not only folly, but tempts the
Church to fall into the traps of power and ultimately the embrace of the sword
and the ethics of mammon. It happens every time and the warnings in Scripture
are ignored and explained away.*
Though the message of a doomed world and a pilgrim call to
take up the cross in faith and repentance is unpopular and certainly runs
contrary to the Madison Avenue Gospel of Evangelicalism (that seeks to dress up
the message and make it attractive), the New Testament expectation is one of
suffering and even martyrdom. That's not a message that can be marketed. It's
one that is preached or proclaimed. In fact the New Testament says plainly that
its foolishness to the fallen world and its patterns of lost worldly and
fleshly thinking.
If Paul is even encouraging people to remain single – a
notion rooted in an eschatological view of life and its goals (also a notion
very foreign to today's Evangelicals and Dominionists), then he is hardly
concerned with building up a civilisation or some notion of Christendom. These
ideologies are not born of the New Covenant, but are rooted in mankind's sinful
tendency to make a name for himself, to accumulate mammon and its glories which
are related to power. At its core it's a reiteration of the Babel ethos and I
would argue the New Testament (and specifically Revelation) is warning us of
the Babel-Beast phenomenon which dominates history and even more pertinently
the danger of the Bride of Christ turning Whore and entering into a union with
those forces and entities. It's the story of Church history.
Taken as a whole, the entire thrust and emphasis of New
Testament doctrine, ethics, and in general terms it's very ethos simply
militates against not just continuity but even the categories that entertain such thoughts and questions.
----
*Further, it would be wrong to think of the New Heavens and
New Earth in terms of creation ex nihilo.
While it is certainly 'new' there seems to be a connection to that which
preceded it. In granting this point, the continuity advocates tend to 'latch
on' and run with their deductions and conclusions. We grant a degree of
continuity in the sense that (it would seem) the matter of the Old Earth is
somehow related to the New and that in terms of the saints there is continuity
in that (though renewed, transformed, and resurrected) we are still ourselves.
You are still you and I am still me. And yet even this is different it would
seem as we 'die' in Christ. I'm not sure it's anything we're really capable of
grasping as so much of who we are now is still tied to self-interest and
misguided passions.
I don't want
to be extra-narrow, or narrower than the Scripture simply for the sake of
polemics. That would be a mistake and yet it's one of those cases that if you
leave the door open a crack the other side kicks it open. But that's always the
risk with nuanced questions. Concretising or absolutising statements is helpful
in terms of coherence but it quickly runs the risk of straying from the
subtleness and flexibility, indeed the nuance found in the text and doctrines
as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
When countering the argument for continuity it's probably better to speak of purging and renewal as opposed to pure annihilation and a completely novel genesis. Likewise if we want (for a moment) to embrace the linguistic punctiliousness of the systematicians we could speak of a distinction between total destruction as opposed to utter destruction – though in many respects I recoil from such pedantic attempts at dissecting doctrinal concepts. Generally speaking the Scriptures do not speak this way nor are doctrines revealed and taught through this form.