The language of replacement continues to make me “itchy” (as a pastor-friend of mine likes to say), but I can see how Revelation 20-21 could be read to say as much. I’m not sure that it’s necessary to use words like “replaced” in relation to creation, even if it is possible that some kind of replacement is in view at the end of Revelation; it’s not clear to me what is gained by this language. Evil and and decay and death will be destroyed. But why does this destruction require the replacement of creation?

I think the idea of continuity between creation and new creation may be helpful here. The resurrection of Jesus has been mentioned. His resurrected body is new and different (it apparently can pass through walls, for example [John 20:26]), but is also in continuity with his pre-resurrection body (he has the marks of crucifixion in his hands [John 20:27]).

Andrew, when you use the phrase “the outer edge of the biblical vision,” are you trying to communicate a stretching and straining of the imagination on the part of the biblical writers, and therefore a fuzziness or lack of clarity on their parts?