Conclusion

 

 

Rex Banks

 

In Revelation 4:4 we read:

 

“Around the throne (of God) were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.”

 

The identity of the twenty four elders has been much debated by those with differing eschatological views and the issue is complicated by textual challenges. (For example in Rev 8:9, 10 translations based upon the Textus Receptus use the pronouns ‘we” and “us” while most others omit the second person plurals in v 9 and employ the third person plural in v 10). Notwithstanding these challenges, important lessons can be learned from John’s account.

 

Clearly "thrones" and "crowns" speak of honor and glory.

 

“(B)y metonymy … the throne stands for dominion, rule, kingly power, sovereignty” (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament).

 

“Crown” here is stephanos:

 

“A stephanos was a wreath made of laurel, oak leaves, ivy, parsley, myrtle, olive, violets or roses. This was the crown that was given to the victor in the Greek athletic games … It was given to the servant of the State who was deserving of honor. It was worn at marriage feasts. Thus a stephanos was a symbol of victory, of deserved honor and of festal gladness. The basic meaning of this word then seems to mean a victor’s wreath or a crown which had been won in conflict” (John P. Burke The Identity of the Twenty-Four Elders: A Critical Monograph on Revelation 4:4 Grace Journal Fall 1961).

 

But since thrones and crowns speak of the elders’ honour and glory, it is understandable that when these created beings “worship Him who lives forever and ever” they “fall down before Him” and “cast their crowns before (His) throne ” (Rev 4:9, 10).

 

“When the living creatures confess the truth of God’s holy deeds, the response of the highest order of God’s heavenly creatures is to relinquish their crowns of honor before the feet of him who alone is ‘worthy’ of ‘glory and honor and power’ because he alone … is the source and stay of every created thing (Ps 33:6-9; 102:25; 136:5ff)” (Alan F. Johnson – Revelation, Expositors Bible Commentary).

 

All glory yields to his glory:

 

“Though seated on thrones of their own (Rev 4:4), yet they fall upon their faces in every act of worship to God and Christ (Rev 4:10; Rev 5:8, Rev 5:14; Rev 19:4)” (Robertson’s Word Pictures).

 

In the worship setting but One Throne is occupied. Leon Morris says it well:

 

“(The elders) prostate themselves before him …on the throne, worship the Eternal and throw down their crowns before Him. All these are ways of giving him the chief place. They themselves worship: they take the lowest place. The throwing down of their crowns expresses the truth that He alone reigns. All other sovereignty must yield to His” (Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary p. 92).

 

Symbols associated with human honour and glory, even God-given symbols have no place in worship. In my view this is why 1st Corinthians 11:2-16 deserves our careful attention. Man exists to glorify God and it would be tragic if the uncovered head of the Christian woman meant that man's glory was seen in a setting where only divine glory should be on display. This would be a serious matter.

 

“God has an inexhaustible passion for his glory, and by application that’s what godliness must involve for men and women: we must come to share his passion for the glory of God; we must learn to cherish God’s glory. And to cherish God’s glory is what it means to worship. Worship is expressed in many different ways, but in its broadest understanding it comes down to cherishing the glory of God” (Ron Man Worship and the Glory of God Reformation and Revival p. 84)

 

I hope that this paper is treated as a sincere attempt to ensure that our worship assemblies do not fall short of the purpose for which they were divinely ordained – the glorification of God.

 

Some verses in 1 Cor 11:2-16 are challenging, but I am convinced that Paul bases his instructions in this passage upon eternal, unchanging realities, just as his argument in 1 Tim 2:8 ff is based upon eternal unchanging realities. In my view Charles C. Ryrie is correct:

 

“Paul’s reasons (for giving the head covering instructions - Rex) were based on Theology - Headship (v 3), order of creation (vv 7, 9) the presence of angels in the assembly (v10) - none of these reasons were based upon contemporary social custom” (Ryrie Study Bible).

 

In similar vein the 19th century Swiss theologian Frédéric Louis Godet says in his Commentary on First Corinthians:

 

“The physical constitution of woman (vv. 13-15) is still the same as it was when Paul wrote, and will continue so till the renewing of all things. The history of creation, to which he appeals (vv.8-12), remains the principle of the social state now as in the time of the apostle, and the sublime analogies between the relations of God to Christ, Christ to man, and man to woman, have not changed to this hour, so that it must be said either that the apostle was wholly wrong in his reasoning, or that his reasons, if they were true for his time, are still so for ours, and will be so to the end.”

 

In a letter to a representative of the Australian Evangelical Presbyterian Church in 1973, Theologian John Murray wrote:

 

Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (vss. 3b, vss. 7ff.), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom. John Murray (Presbyterian Reformed Church Magazine, Winter 1992 (http://www.presbyterianreformed.org/articles-aamp-books/40-winter-1992-prc-magazine/66-the-use-of-head-coverings-in-the-worship-of-god).

 

While Professor of Old Testament at Regent College, British Columbia, Bruce K. Waltke wrote:

 

“Although the argument from nature may be debated since it must be judged for oneself, the practice of covering one’s head appropriate to one’s sex is not open to debate as seen in the fact that the whole apostolic church, both Jewish and Gentile, taught and practiced this regulation.

 

(I)n the case of the male-female relationship he grounded his teaching on theological principles as old and enduring as the creation itself. Later on, in his letter to Ephesus, he based the husband-wife relationship on the eternal relationship of Christ and His church.

 

In this writer’s judgment … it would be well for Christian women to wear head coverings at church meetings as a symbol of an abiding theological truth (1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation Bibliotheca Sacra Jan 1978).

 

In keeping with the spirit of our age, every passage in the NT which has traditionally been understood to place limitations on the role of women is being explained away. Yes EVERY PASSAGE. The head covering, the silence of women in the churches, the headship of the husband in the marriage relationship – every passage dealing with gender specific instructions have been or are being “revisited.“ This is not hard to understand:

 

“As Bruce A. Ware has written... ‘It is fair to say that our culture despises the traditional Christian understanding of gender roles. It is no wonder, therefore, that enormous pressure is placed on Christians, particularly Christian leaders, to make concessions so that the resulting “Christian” stance adapts into one that is less offensive to the modern Weltanschauung’” (Peter R. Schemm Jr. Editorial Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 12:2 Fall 2007)

 

Our challenge is to resist any attempt to diminish the God of all glory. I am sure that there are other questions on this topic which deserve attention, and I acknowledge that I have questions myself. However, let me make this point: we do not need to be able to deal with every conceivable question on some subject in order to understand the basics of some teaching. To illustrate this point consider again the Gender and Ministry debate. Brother Ralph Gilmore who, quite rightly, defends male leadership in the church, is asked certain specific questions on the subject of teaching: for example “may a woman participate in a teaching skit to a mixed crowd?” (Gender p. 77). Brother Gilmore responds:

 

"I feel like F. LaGarde Smith on this matter when he said that it is easier to show what the biblical principles involved are than to apply them in specific instances … With regard to skits...I am not convinced that skits really teach in a formal way, so I am not clear on whether or not it would be wrong" (Gender p 78).

 

In my view this answer shows real wisdom. Sometimes it is indeed much easier to grasp a basic teaching than it is to apply that teaching to every particular situation, but we must not let this blind us to the overall point that is being made. Brother Gilmore acknowledges that he has difficulty applying Paul’s instructions in 1 Tim 2:8 ff to every conceivable situation, but what he does not do is to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” He does not relinquish the clearly- taught principle of male leadership in 1 Tim 2, simply because there are some areas where he has difficulty applying the principle. He is “not clear” on skits, but he does not for this reason throw out the whole teaching.

 

Really this is how we should deal with every Bible subject. Details are sometimes tricky, but wise brethren do not throw out the N.T pattern simply because matters arise about which they have questions. There are matters relating to 1 Cor 11:2-16 about which I am uncertain, just as there are questions about 1 Tim 2:8 ff about which wise brethren like brother Gilmore are uncertain, but this does not mean that we cannot claim to understand the overall point being made about male leadership or about the head covering.