The similarities of heavenly worship between Isaiah’s vision and John’s vision reveal that this is eternal worship, the reality of heavenly worship as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. The heavenly worship of John’s vision, coming as it does after the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, does elevate the Lamb who was slain in a way absent in Isaiah’s vision, but nevertheless even the atonement provided Isaiah was based upon the sinless Servant who was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. The core and essence of heavenly worship in both cases is the same.

“Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”
This ancient hymn captures three eras of worship: as it was in the beginning—the worship of Old Testament Israel, as it is now—the worship of New Testament Christianity, and worship in the world without end—the worship of heaven. In one sense separating worship into these three eras emphasizes their discontinuity; yet, while there are certainly discontinuities between the worship of Israel and the New Testament church, for example, there are also important continuities, and where we find an emphasis on the continuity is in that little phrase, “and ever shall be.”
Yet Christians have long wrestled with the continuities and discontinuities of worship, and confusion in this area has often led to problems with theology and practice of worship. The solution is found in a proper understanding of the foundations of biblical worship.
Understanding properly how worship as it was in the beginning and worship as it is now relate to worship in the world without end helps us to recognize what shall ever be, the center of true worship and, consequently, the purpose of what we do as we gather for worship now.
Scripture presents us with two extended descriptions of the worship of the world without end that provide the foundation for our discussion, notably one set in the context of worship in the Old Testament and the other set in the context of worship in the New Testament. In both cases, these descriptions of heavenly worship were presented during a time of problems with earthly worship, revealing the fact that problems with our worship now are corrected when we bring our worship into proper relationship with the worship of the world without end.
Isaiah 6
This was true for the nation of Israel; during Solomon’s reign and especially following the divided kingdom, God’s people forsook the pure worship of God and began first to fall into syncretistic worship, and eventually full blow idolatry. Even noble kings in the southern kingdom, such as Uzziah, approached worship presumptuously and not according to God’s explicit command by entering into the sanctuary though he had no right to do so.
It is no coincidence that the death of Uzziah is the very context for the prophet Isaiah’s vision of heavenly worship in Isaiah 6:1–13. In a way, this was God reminding Isaiah of the true reality upon which pure earthly worship was supposed to be based. God called Isaiah up into the heavenly temple itself, where he “saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up” (verse 1). Surrounding God were seraphim singing the Trisagion hymn (“thrice holy”),
Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;The whole earth is full of his glory!
The sight of God in all of his holiness and splendor caused Isaiah to recognize his own sin and unworthiness to draw near to the presence of God in his temple, what Uzziah should have known before entering the earthly temple as he did. Thus, Isaiah confessed his sin before the Lord: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (verse 5)!
Yet God did not simply expel Isaiah from the temple due to his impurity; rather, God provided means of atonement. One of the seraphim took a burning goal from the altar and placed it on Isaiah’s lips, proclaiming, “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.” Now Isaiah was welcome in the presence of God by the means God himself had provided.
Standing accepted in God’s presence, Isaiah heard the voice of the Lord giving him a message, to which Isaiah willingly offered obedience, and God sent Isaiah forth with that message of both exhortation and promised blessing to the nation of Israel. Later, Isaiah’s message to the people of Israel reveals that if they submit to God’s exhortation and commit themselves to him, then “On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all people’s a rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined” (Isaiah 25:6). God displays his acceptance of forgiven sinners through a celebratory feast.
This reality of heavenly worship contained a theological pattern that should have provided a corrective for the syncretistic and idolatrous worship of God’s people:
God reveals himself and calls his people to worshipGod’s people acknowledge and confess their need for forgivenessGod provides atonementGod speaks his WordGod’s people respond with commitmentGod hosts a celebratory feast
Isaiah’s vision and message from God were supposed to correct the idolatrous worship of his people, but, of course, the hard-hearted people did not listen, and thus they never experienced the full blessings God had promised to them if they repented.
Revelation
In the book of Revelation, God granted the apostle John a similar glimpse into the temple of heaven. As with Isaiah during the reign of King Uzziah, it is no accident that this vision of heavenly worship came at a time when worship on earth was in chaos; even a noble church like the one in Ephesus had lost its first love, and many Christians like those in Laodicea had become lukewarm.
In John’s vision, like Isaiah’s vision, heavenly worship contains a theological pattern that should inform and correct earthly Christian worship. It begins with a Call to Worship: “Come up here” (chapter 4 verse 1), followed by a vision of God himself and angels singing the Trisagion hymn (verse 8) and hymns of praise for creation (verse 11).
Read More
Related Posts:

The progressives have not been solid with biblical truth. This is clearly exemplified by their weak handling of the whole Revoice affair. The first Revoice Conference was held in a PCA church in Missouri Presbytery, pastored by a self-avowed same-sex attracted pastor, and pretty well celebrated all around by progressives. Where were the elders (overseers) of the session of Memorial Presbyterian Church; and where was the denomination when this was going on? Why was it ever permitted?  

I’m alarmed at the trends taking place in the PCA, marked in some places by the decline and departure from the truth that are very similar to what happened in the PCUSA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I spent some years in the ‘80s as a ruling elder at Hope Presbyterian Church, an evangelical PCUSA church in Minneapolis, before leaving to join a startup PCA church (Parkwood Pres.) under Douglas Lee as pastor. While at Hope, I was liaison to the Twin Cities presbytery and suffered through many presbytery meetings, where the conservative to liberal ratio was about 25/75. I spoke out when I could, but the votes were hopelessly in favor of the liberal unbelievers. Now look at the state of the PCUSA, as its demise is marked by its death rattle.
We moved to St. Louis in 2002 and remained there for 13 years. During those years we were members at Covenant Presbyterian Church under the pastorates of George Robertson and Ryan Laughlin. In 2015 we moved to Flowery Branch, GA, and are currently members of very solid Chestnut Mountain Presbyterian Church, where John Batusic is pastor.
Having carefully read David B. Calhoun’s 2-volume work, Princeton Seminary, which masterfully documents the tragic fall of the seminary and denomination as a whole, I am struck with the similarities between PCUSA/Princeton Sem. and PCA/Covenant Sem. The former is of course far down the road to oblivion and the latter is only in the early stages, but the PCA will end up where the PCUSA is now, if its slippage is not halted in its tracks and it is not delivered from the deadly effects of the progressivism in our midst.
It needs to be noted here that it was the fault of progressive elders in the PCUSA and PCUS that those denominations stumbled and fell. The elders are charged with protecting the sheep but many of the “shepherds” proved to be false prophets dressed in sheep’s clothing, who inwardly were ravenous wolves. Instead of protecting and nurturing the sheep according to God’s Word, as Machen and many others were urging, they led the sheep astray and scattered them. Here is Paul’s instruction to elders:
“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:28-30).
Unfortunately, I see Paul’s prophecy coming to pass now among progressive elders in the PCA. They don’t seem like fierce wolves, of course, because they’re dressed in shepherd’s clothing.
But progressivism is never a good thing, either in politics or in religion. Religious progressives have a tendency to change the Gospel to make it culturally relevant and less offensive. They wobble and vacillate on homosexuality, creation, the social justice gospel, the Federal Vision, and other issues. When elders are not solidly biblical on these, they are trifling with the truth and not communicating the Christian Gospel as written. They are telling God that they know better than he does, what his Word should say and how it should be interpreted.
Now, I acknowledge that progressives in the PCA are not (yet) as bad as the progressives in the PCUSA. But, then, neither were the PCUSA progressives in 1915 as bad as they are now. There is a tendency for a denomination to spiral downward once progressivism takes hold in that denomination. I am concerned that this downward spiral, already commenced in the PCA, will accelerate if the PCA allows its own organization of progressive Christians (known as the National Partnership) to have significant influence.
The progressives have not been solid with biblical truth. This is clearly exemplified by their weak handling of the whole Revoice affair. The first Revoice Conference was held in a PCA church in Missouri Presbytery, pastored by a self-avowed same-sex attracted pastor, and pretty well celebrated all around by progressives. Where were the elders (overseers) of the session of Memorial Presbyterian Church; and where was the denomination when this was going on? Why was it ever permitted?
The short answer is that, as appalling as it sounds, the progressive elders, teaching and ruling, wanted it to happen, participated in its happening, and celebrated its happening. That shows where they’re coming from and where the PCA is headed if progressives are allowed to have their way.
The 2021 General Assembly dealt forthrightly with this serious breach of biblical sexual ethics. Against the desire of the National Partnership (NP), the issue of homosexuality was addressed in two overtures, with many progressives speaking against them. Overtures 23 and 37, after much debate, were both passed in the Overtures Committee with strong majorities and were passed on the floor of the Assembly with similarly overwhelming majorities. These overtures are now before the PCA presbyteries for their consideration. Each must receive approval from 2/3 of the presbyteries, and then another vote by the 2022 GA in Birmingham.
I have read many analyses of the overtures and reasons why they should be approved as well as why they should not be approved. I heartily approve of both overtures and find the arguments for approving them biblical and strong.
On the other hand, I am amazed to see progressives vigorously opposing approval of these amendments, offering what I consider to be weak rationale to justify their disapproval. For example: (1) the overtures are unnecessary (no, they are necessary because they provide needed guidance on what it means for officers to be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character); (2) the overtures are unclear (they are clear enough for the average person to understand); (3) they will not bring peace to the PCA (of course they won’t, their purpose is to expect biblical traits and behavior). And on it goes, with no convincing biblical rationale against the overtures.
Finally, I find it disturbing that, of those who recorded their No votes on the overtures at GA, the votes were overwhelmingly those of teaching elders. As I reviewed the No votes I was surprised with some of the names on the list.
It seems to me that, in signing their names to a list like that, they wanted to draw attention to how they voted. That they voted No, undoubtedly pleased those associated with the NP. Apparently, they don’t want to do anything to stem the growth of the cancer infecting the PCA from within, or perhaps they prefer to deny that there is a cancer at all.
In the case of “cancer,” we know that sometimes the best remedy is the surgical removal of the cancer. Is this what we are faced with in the PCA now? My hope and pray is that we are there yet. The concern now is to see the overtures passed successfully in the presbyteries and ratified at the next GA.
David Ostien is a member of Chestnut Mountain Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) in Chestnut Mountain, Ga.

As you try to reach the next generation for Christ, you can amaze them with your cleverness, your humor, or your looks. Or you can amaze them with God. I need a lot of things in my life. There are schedules and details and a long to-do list. I need food and water and shelter. I need sleep. I need more exercise, and I need to eat better. But this is my greatest need and yours: to know God, love God, delight in God, and make much of God.

Give Them God (Not Moralism)
I beg of you, don’t go after the next generation with mere moralism, either on the right (“don’t have sex, do go to church, share your faith, stay off drugs”) or on the left (“recycle, dig a well, feed the homeless, buy a wristband”). The gospel is a message not about what we need to do for God but about what God has done for us. So get them with the good news about who God is and what he has done for us.
Some of us, it seems, are almost scared to tell people about God. Perhaps because we don’t truly know him. Maybe because we prefer living in triviality. Or maybe because we don’t consider knowing God to be very helpful in real life. I have to fight against this unbelief in my own life. If only I would trust God that he is enough to win the hearts and minds of the next generation. It’s his work much more than it is mine or yours. So make him front and center. Don’t confuse platitudes with profundity. Don’t proclaim an unknown god, when we know who God is and what he is like (Acts 17:23). And don’t reduce God to your own level. If ever people were starving for a God the size of God, surely it is now.
Give them a God who is holy, independent, and unlike us—a God who is good, just, full of wrath, and full of mercy. Give them a God who is sovereign, powerful, tender, and true. Give them a God with edges. Give them an undiluted God who makes them feel cherished and safe, and small and uncomfortable too.
Read More
Related Posts: