And they sang a new song, saying,
Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood
you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and
people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom
and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.
Clearly, the focus here is the sheer diversity of peoples who will be represented around the throne of God, together worshiping the Lamb. I have always imagined this in a way where the peoples around the throne would look different, but I also wonder how they might sound different.
If, as most linguists and sociologists believe, language plays such an extraordinary role in who we are, how we think, and what we do and do not say, is there suggestion in this text that we will not end up learning some universal, heavenly language with which to address each other, but that we will all instead gain the capacity to understand all other peoples as they speak from their own languages?
So, rather than speaking Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, or even King James English around the throne, will I communicate using 21st century Midwestern, American English, but nevertheless listen to (and understand!) people speaking Coptic, Sumerian, Celtic, Chinese, Swahili, and every other possible variation of every other language?
It struck me as an interesting thought–how better to give the Lamb glory than demonstrating his power to save people from all the different people groups and languages ever to have been spoken!
But to your post’s point about the beauty of diversity in heaven is well-taken. We were discussing gender last night at small group, and were wondering whether there would be gender in heaven. I tend to think so (though it will look surely look much different than on earth), and that such differences will (like linguistic ones) further enhance the glory of God.
Another thought, although it completely bypasses the point of your post: I’m curious what your current views on language are. I think I remember that during college you were skeptical of contemporary literary criticism’s emphasis on language as structuring thought.
It was great to see you and Allison in Chicago, BTW!
(Please ignore the nonsensical grammar of my first post…I restructured it at the last minute.)
Interesting. I like that thought, as someone who very much enjoys language in general. I am thinking about the Tower of Babel, that apparently prior to that, there was one unified language, and God created different language to confuse. Also reminds me of Pentecost, that the Apostles were given the Holy Spirit and were able to speak languages from around the world. It does seem that there will be some sort of redemption of language, to rework the “babel/babble” and turn it to comprehension and praise – whether that means one unified language, as pre-Babel, or understanding of all languages, closer to something like Pentecost.
Interesting thoughts.
Andrew–
I recall C. S. Lewis writing about his thoughts on gender in marriage. (I think it was in Letters to Malcolm, but I’m not positive.) He wrote that gender in heaven will be like a sword worn for ceremony. Only the victors would wear such swords, and they would serve a purpose, but not the purpose that they served in battle.
Besides, as a theology professor was commenting, it is impossible to be a generic human being–not even Christ was generic. He was a particular human being, of a particular gender, born in a particular time and place. I would think that we too are particular, and that our particularity is for God’s glory.
As for my views on language, I don’t exactly remember the conversation that we had, but my position would be that language does shape our thinking, but that we shouldn’t overstate it. I think in a way largely defined by my Midwestern, American 21st century English; nevertheless, my language does not create my reality–it merely helps to describe it. I don’t know if that helps, but it has been a long time since I took those kinds of classes. 🙂
And it was fantastic to see you both, too. Allison and I very much enjoyed that part of our weekend.
Bethany–
Your comments on Babel helped me to make an important connection. Babel is the first city mentioned in the Bible, and it is a very wicked city–in fact, it serves as a type of Babylon. In Revelation, Babylon is the great enemy that the Lamb will conquer, and I take Babylon to be symbolic of all the evil world systems ever to exist. Babylon as a city is juxtaposed against Jerusalem; thus Augustine, in his City of God, famously describes the two types of citizens according to these two cities: those of God and those against him.
The point in all of this is that, despite the fact that the first city was evil and the fact that many cities afterward were evil, it does not negate the fact that we are not headed to another Garden (where we had our beginnings) but to a City. Thus, despite the fact that cities, from the beginning, have been set against God, he will redeem one to be our eternal home.
Similarly, the first (wicked) city was also the first place people spoke many languages, (which was God’s judgment for their wickedness), and you rightly point to Pentecost as a point at which those languages were redeemed for salvation purposes.
Babel, then, is the point at which cities and languages began in wickedness; nevertheless, I would argue that the heavenly Jerusalem will be the redeemed city where all languages will be used to praise God uniquely.
By the way, if you ever get to listen to a production of Felix Mendelssohn’s Belshazzar’s Feast, he does a fantastic job of showing this age-long conflict between Jerusalem and Babel/Babylon. That musical production is the best sermon I have ever heard on Revelation.
Two thoughts: one is from a recent Tim Keller sermon that I listened to. He was talking about what our bodies would be like in the new heavens and new earth, and about how our bodies would be even “more so”–one example that he said was we might have more than the five senses that we have now (seven senses? twelve? a million?) If that is the case, then maybe one of our new senses would be the ability to understand everyone else’s languages.
thought 2: does that mean I will also be able to better understand the teenager who, like, uses, like, the word “like” about 20 times in a single, like, sentence? Because, sometimes, like, I , like, lose my, like, train of thought by the end….not that I’m naming any names.