Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Covering Discussion

The Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Discussion on

I Corinthians 11:1-16

Martin's Tenth Article

This is the next Don Martin writes under the Subject line: Re:I Corinthians 11:1-16...

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Date:
Sun, 2 Feb 2003 15:46:53 -0700
From:
"Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To:
<mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to Mark Ward and the list:

I have a few minutes before I prepare to begin a series of sermons tonight
on the war issue.

Mark wrote:

Don misunderstands that he really has a "special assembly" or "unusual"
situation (tho he doesn't want to admit it for a second <g>) in Acts
20:7 'cause an inspired apostle did the preaching (special subject in
the assembly at Troas, Don, just like your asserted special subjects,
praying and/or prophesying men/women in an assembly with uninspired
men/women in the assemblies at Corinth)...we don't have that
today...therefore (according to Don's reasoning, to be consistent, mind
you) we shouldn't be able to use Acts 20:7 for authority or
applicability today!!!

Don comments:

I thought the point relative to Acts 20: 7 was authority for the regular
observance of the Lord's Supper on the Lord's Day, at least this has been my
thrust. It is true that Paul was present and that he had miraculous
abilities, however, such is incidental. The point is the church at Troas
met on the Lord's Day to break bread. There is not anything limiting or
restricting or unusual in this example to indicate it is not meant to be
universally observed. For instance, the members were not doing something
unusual and extraordinary that is being considered for duplication today,
such as "praying or prophesying." To the converse, the subjects of I
Corinthians 11: 3-16 were doing sometime that was time limited, they were
prophesying. This prophesying was not uninspired teaching, but teaching
issued as a result of the impetus of the Holy Spirit. Since prayer could on
occasion also be inspired (I Cor. 14: 15) and in view of "praying" being
associated with "prophesying," I conclude the praying being done by these
prophetesses and prophets was also Spirit led.

The fact that Paul was present when the church at Troas observed the Lord's
Supper does not negate Christians today from following their example,
especially in view of the universal and without time restriction of the
Lord's Supper.

Notwithstanding, Mark reasoned:

"...an inspired apostle did the preaching (special subject in
the assembly at Troas, Don, just like your asserted special subjects,
praying and/or prophesying men/women in an assembly with uninspired
men/women in the assemblies at Corinth)...we don't have that
today...therefore (according to Don's reasoning, to be consistent, mind
you) we shouldn't be able to use Acts 20:7 for authority or
applicability today!!!"

Mark, the church at Troas did not come together to hear Paul, they came
together to "break bread," the fact Paul was there was incidental, I again
emphasize. We can duplicate the Lord's Supper, but we cannot duplicate
prophets and prophetesses, the essential action of I Corinthians 11: 3-16,
the action that you seek to bind on all women, Mark.

Mark continues:

"...folks due to his straining to put miraculous ONLY on praying, for
example! Don asserts we CAN duplicate what took place in the assembly
with the inspired apostle in it (the one in Acts 20:7, concerning the
Lord's Supper specifically <g>) but assumes we CANNOT duplicate what
took place in the assembly at Corinth (concerning "every man" and "every
woman" ~"praying"~, for example)!!! That's my point exactly. Proper
discernment is key here, brother Don.

Don comments:

Again, we are comparing apples and oranges. Mark is contending that we
duplicate "praying or prophesying" and the head covering in our assemblies
today based on the example and teaching of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. We
cannot do this because we do not have prophetesses and prophets today and
the head covering does not even mean to us what it meant to them. However,
the Lord's Supper which the church at Troas observed can be duplicated. The
fact Paul was present was incidental. Also, we have teaching to further
show the example at Troas is to be duplicated (Acts 2: 42, etc.). There is
no external teaching to show the head covering was binding on all women,
BEFORE, AFTER, or even IN I Corinthians 11: 3-16. Mark is ignoring the
subjects, the immediate context, the full context (chapters 12, 14), the
common meaning of "prophesying," the possibility of prayer being inspired
and in view of its association with "prophesying," in all likelihood being
inspired, and the absence of any teaching outside this circumstance
involving the miraculous binding the covering on all women today.

Mark further reasons:

Just because we have uninspired
folks ONLY in our assemblies today doesn't negate EITHER Acts 20:7 OR I
Corinthians 11 instruction for us (or the rest of most of the NT, for
that matter <g>). Don doesn't understand, doesn't recognize his own
reasoning applied to another subject, but we hope he will, in time.
Please carefully read on...

Don comments:

Again, Mark's logic is irregular and zig zag. There is not anything unusual
about the church at Troas, I repeat Paul's presence was incidental.
However, the subjects themselves, the "praying or prophesying" women and men
were special and unusual and limited by time (I Cor. 12: 10, 13: 8-10). We
can duplicate the observance of the Lord's Supper in keeping with other
teachings regarding this memorial. However, we cannot duplicate
prophetesses and prophets.

Mark has placed great stress and focus on "praying" as part of "praying or
prophesying" (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). Even if the "praying" is not inspired, you
still have these women (prophetesses) doing the same thing the men were
doing (prophets) and in the same circumstances. I have said this many times
and have stated that I do believe these exceptional women, the prophetesses,
were publicly used just as their male counter-parts, the prophets, were used
(cp. Lk. 2: 36, 38). These were exceptional women to whom such teaching as
I Timothy 2: 12 did not apply. Yet, Mark is telling us that we must have
"praying or prophesying" women today and have a covering on their head.

Mark states:

Just as I used the "teachers of good things" having a meaning that would
INCLUDE uninspired AND inspired teachers of good things and just as I
used "a prophet is not without honor in his own country" to having the
application whether the prophet was uninspired OR inspired, I have
stressed that I believe the passage is applicable for uninspired OR
inspired "praying or prophesying". Yet, you wrote, in part, "Mark must
make the "praying" natural and the "prophesying" ONLY UNINSPIRED (emp
mine, mjw) teaching..." Don, please correct this brother! We are BOTH
human and subject to writing something in haste without praying or
proofing over it. Maybe such is the case (I have noted the misspelling
of "covering" with "coving" a few times, Don..slow down brother???)?

Don comments:

Mark, you and I have different vocabularies. When I am speaking normally
and without some exceptional nuance in mind regarding prophets, I am
speaking of a man who was miraculously prompted by the Holy Spirit. This is
the meaning and usage of "prophet" (cp. I Pet. 1: 10, 11, 2 Pet. 1: 21).
You have taken a rare usage of "prophet" and built a theology around it,
talking in general about "uninspired prophets." Mark, I do not believe that
I have misrepresented you in the least. Unless you believe the miraculous
gift of prophesy is present today in certain men and women, you have to
reduce "prophesying" to the natural, uninspired act to bind the covering on
women today. I do not have the problem of word logistics because I believe
"prophesying" was inspired teaching and foretelling.

Mark persists:

Mark jumping in for emphasis here, Don please note the following,
please. I believe I have previously made it clear that my view is
INCLUSIVE of both INSPIRED & UNINSPIRED "praying or prophesying".
Therefore, I don't "reduce" it, like Don asserts above. (from MARS-List
Digest 3856, February 1, 2003)

Don repeats:

In order for Mark to have inspired teaching (prophesying) today and not
believe in the miraculous gift of prophesy, Mark must reduce "prophesying"
to natural teaching, unaided by the Spirit.

Mark concludes:

Also, we need to note that Don has not adequately dealt with teaching us
why it would be more important for inspired men/women to be covered than
uninspired at times the church would be engaging in "praying or
prophesying

Don comments:

Mark, I have explained this to the point of redundancy. Here goes again:
These men (prophets) and women (prophetesses) were doing the same thing and
in the exact same circumstances. In order for these exceptional women who
were publicly "duplicating" what the men were doing not to be guilty or
viewed as guilty of insubordination (headship violations), they were to be
covered. The covering had a special meaning to those people, apparently
emblematic of subjugation. The woman seated in the audience while a male
assumes the position of "the teacher" does not need any artificial "sign of
authority" on her head.

I believe I Timothy 2: 12 restricted the unexceptional women then and
excludes women today from assuming the posture of public teacher. Again,
the prophetesses appear to have been the exception; hence, the special need
for the head coving in their time and situation. I cannot be clearer and
plainer than this.

Concerned readers, Mark and I are not "mad" at each other, we are both
stressing our points. Mark Ward believes the head coving of I Corinthians
11 is binding on women today. I believe the teaching even then was limited
to the "praying or prophesying" women and not all women in the church. I
believe this because I believe these women were special and unusual (moved
by the impetus of the Holy Spirit). I believe Mark is ignoring the
subjects, the immediate context, the full context (chapters 12, 14), the
common meaning of "prophesying," the possibility of prayer being inspired
and in view of its association with "prophesying," in all likelihood being
inspired, and the absence of any teaching outside this circumstance
involving the miraculous binding the covering on all women today.

(from MARS-List 3861, February 2, 2003)

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE NEXT ARTICLE

CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS STUDY

[Editor’s Note: This is one of the most in-depth, comprehensive studies between two brethren on the issue of whether "the spiritual gifts view" of I Corinthians 11:1-16 is true, or whether God requires women today to cover their heads with an artifical covering whenever they pray. We hope all readers will continue to study all Bible topics with open minds, willing to conform to God's Truth. Thanks for reading! - Mark J. Ward markjward@yahoo.com ]

Email the Editor at markjward@yahoo.com