Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Covering Discussion

The Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Discussion on

I Corinthians 11:1-16

Martin's 14th

This is the next (in sequence) post(s) Don Martin writes under the Subject line: Re:I Corinthians 11:1-16...

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Date:
Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:08:18 -0700
From:
"Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To:
<mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to the list:

I want all who have been following the I Corinthians 11: 1-16 exchange
between Mark Ward and me to know that I have read Mark's posts published to
ML late Saturday night, I believe it was. I do intend to address his
arguments and afterward, submit question one for Mark's consideration and
answer.

If I understood Mark, there is a good chance that Mark will not be able to
participate much in the exchange until about the first of March, due to his
job commitments. Therefore, I am in no special hurry to reply. However, I
will try to have a couple of posts tomorrow and question one.

Thanks again to Mark and to all of you who have shown interest in this
subject. Both Mark and I have had some encouraging private emails from list
members. A good exchange takes time and it is encouraging to know that
there are others reading both sides and comparing.

I bid all a pleasant good night.

Cordially,
Don Martin dmartin5@concentric.net

Check out our Web sites: http://www.bibletruths.net
Ask a question and receive a Bible answer http://www.biblequestions.org
Simply click on the URL to visit these sites. You may print out
the material for teaching purposes, see the copyright
provision on the home page of Bible Truths.

(from MARS-List Digest 3910, February 17, 2003)

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Date:
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:38:22 -0700
From:
"Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To:
<mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to Mark Ward and the list (post one of three):

I really do not have a lot that I want to say in my responsive posts
relative to the covering issue of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. Mark and I
continue at an impasse in that he sees the covering applicable and binding
on all "praying or prophesying" women today. Of course, Mark must engage in
some word logistics to arrive at this conclusion since Mark does not believe
the gift of prophesy is extant.

Mark wrote:

I appreciate Don's attitude that prevails his post, however
he continually fails to see that he has taken the
"prophesying" in the text of I Corinthians 11 and elevated
it FIRST in his hermenuetical ~process~ and based theories
from that, some of them unwarranted by the text and other
teaching of the New Testament!

Don comments:

I realize that Mark cannot understand why I took the second mentioned word
in "praying or prophesying" to help the reader understand the nature of the
subjects, the context, and the probable nature of the associated praying. I
have said many times that the common meaning of "prophesying" is teaching
and foretelling by the impetus of the Holy Spirit. The common and simple
meaning of prayer is the natural petitioning of God by man. However, prayer
can be inspired (I Cor. 14: 15). Since "praying" and "prophesying" are
adjectival participles used to describe the action of these people to whom
the covering applied either positively (prophetesses) or negatively
(prophets), I believe "praying" is also inspired. Mark attempts to reverse
the process by reasoning thus: "Praying" can be uninspired. Since all
women in the church at Corinth followed in prayer and, therefore, prayed,
all women at Corinth were "praying" women and were to be veiled. Mark has
also reasoned that "prophesying" can be uninspired teaching. Therefore, all
women teaching must be veiled. I understand these "praying or prophesying"
women to have been a special group, not all women at Corinth. They were the
female counter-part of the prophets. In other words, they were
prophetesses. In view of what these women were doing, in view of the fact
that they were doing the same thing as the prophets, and in view of the
meaning of the covering to those people, these women were to be veiled.

I have attempted to stress two basic facts:

(1). We do not have prophets and prophetesses today (I Cor. 13: 8-10).
(2). The veil of the east does not have a place or meaning in our
American culture.

Hence, the specific teaching resident in I Corinthians 11: 3-16 pertaining
to these women and the veil is inapplicable to women in the church today.

I think a lot of Mark but his logic is flawed. Mark wrote:

SINCE one can be "praying" without prophesying, I DENY that
the "every man" and "every woman" to whom Paul wrote in I
Cor. 11 HAD TO BE a "prophet or prophetess".

Don comments:

In spite of "every man" (pas aner) and "every woman" (pasa de gune) being
used with "praying or prophesying," Mark continues to insist that "every
man" and "every woman" means every man and every woman in the church at
Corinth (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). Mark is guilty of something that we all have
probably done at some time and that is: Mark is approaching the text with a
manifest prejudice that is causing him to deny basic language and syntax.
I am not attempting to belittle Mark, but this is just the truth of the
matter. I have dealt with Mark's attributive versus predicate positioning
of "praying or prophesying" and have shown, I believe, that regardless of
whether we understand "praying or prophesying" to be attributive (stressing
who these men and woman were) or predicate (saying what these men and women
were doing), the fact remains the same: Paul is discussing the "praying or
prophesying" men and women at Corinth. Not all Christians at Corinth had
the gift of prophesy, but Mark is ignoring this stated fact (I Cor. 12:
10ff. cp. chapter 14). Mark incorrectly reduces the common meaning of
"prophesy" to uninspired teaching.

Mark repeats:

I have asked Don before why he gives so much EMPHASIS to
"prophesying" in the text, since it is SEPARATED FROM
"praying". I even noted that "praying" came FIRST in the
text.

Don again answers:

The "or" (Greek he) syntactically separates "praying" and "prophesying" (I
Cor. 11: 4, 5). I have explained that it appears to me that the use of "or"
is simply meant to prevent the reader from understanding that these special
men and women were simultaneously each "praying" and "prophesying."
However, I understand that the "praying or prophesying" were characteristic
acts of the prophets and prophetesses under review and, therefore, were what
they did. It is strained and unwarranted to attempt to not only
syntactically separate "praying" and "prophesying" but to also endeavor to
detach them and not have them to be what these men and women were doing in
their circumstance. In view of Mark's position, he must try to detach and
disassociate "praying" and "prophesying." Mark then presented his long and
extended, "Biking or hiking illustration," which totally lost me. Mark,
there is no way around "every man" and "every woman" means "every man
praying or prophesying" and "every woman praying or prophesying" (I Cor. 11:
4, 5). Not all men and not all women at Corinth are being addressed.

Mark thus concluded from his "biking or hiking illustration:"

1. Now, I contend that "every boy" and "every girl" while
engaging in either biking or hiking would be "every boy" and
"every girl" at Corinth High.

Don remarks:

Again, we must not dilute or attempt to obviate the obvious special nature
of these men and women at Corinth. They were not ordinary but prophets
and prophetesses.

See post two, please.

(from MARS-List Digest 3914, Feb. 18, 2003)

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Date:
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:39:13 -0700
From:
"Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To:
<mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don to Mark Ward and the list (post two of three):

Mark wrote:

Why are we supposed to take this hermenutical process? Don
says cause its the right way to go about understanding the
Bible. Don accuses me of not properly paying attention to
those to whom Paul wrote. I think it is just the opposite. I
believe and teach that "every man" was "every man" to whom
Paul wrote that was able to engage in "praying OR
prophesying"! See the point dear readers and Don?]

Don responds,

Mark, I learned a long time ago to pay attention "to whom it was said." Try
as you may, the text involving the covering or veil is pertaining to
"men...women praying or prophesying" and doing so in such a way as to call
into question the matter of headship. In view of the meaning of the veil to
those people, Paul bound the veil on the women while they were "praying or
prophesying" and precluded the veil from the men while they were "praying or
prophesying." Again, Mark, you fail to realize not only who these people
were, but also the circumstance in which they were "praying or prophesying."
These women needed to be covered in view of the sameness of what they and
their male counter-parts were doing and, obviously, were they were doing it
to eliminate any possible abuse of headship insubordination.

Mark reasoned:

I had written: Even IF, brother Don, "praying or prophesying" were telling
the type of woman (as opposed to when), since we still have
praying today, and since there is the little word "or"
between the two words, we STILL have "praying or
prophesying" women today.

Don replies:

Mark's logic totally escapes me, I am sorry.

Mark wrote:

Draw the "parallel" in your mind between "foot washing" and
the coverings of I Corinthians 11, brother Don and I will
deal with it. I see no argument so far, in this regard. Are
you saying that ~since foot washing meant the SAME THING to
the Jews and the Greeks at Corinth, and since foot washing
was indigenous to the lifestyle of the first century person
living in Corinth, for example, in New Testament written
times...that such is not applicable to "Americans" today AND
ON THAT BASIS the covering meant the SAME THING to the Jews
and the Greeks at Corinth, and since covering the head was
indigenous to the lifestyle of the first century person
living in Corinth, that such is not applicable to
"Americans" today???

Don comments:

Mark, the whole stated point in my introduction of the foot washing matter
of John 13 was to show that the act was indigenous to the lifestyle of the
oriental and that the occidental (those of us today in America) really do
not have the same need or understanding of foot washing. Thus it is
with the covering of I Corinthians 11.

Mark quotes me and then adds his comments:

DON'S INCORRECT SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENT (was):
(1). Those who had the gift of prophecy (both men and
women), were to edify the church with their gift (I Cor. 14:
3, 5, 12, 23, 24, 26-31).

(2). The church at Corinth was comprised of both male and
female members (I Cor. 14: 34, 35; 11: 4, 5).

(3). Hence, both prophets and prophetesses were publicly
used to teach the church and foretell by the impetus of the
Holy Spirit.

Mark here:
Don, I want to know in premise #1 above what you mean by
"edify the church". Edify IN THE CHURCH can be DIFFERENT
than EDIFY THE CHURCH:

Don answers:

I mean by "to edify the church with their gift" the same thing that Paul
meant (I Cor. 14:
3, 5, 12, 23, 24, 26-31). Mark, again, you are engaging in word gymnastics
and games.

Mark complimented me:

This is much better than holding up
"Cavender" as a champion from Don's file on katakalupto, for
example! I also want to insert here, that I APPLAUD Don for
refraining from appealing to Cavender in his last post!

Don responds:

Mark, I find this rather strange. I briefly refer to Bill Cavender's good
booklet on the covering and you really become excited. I have not had
anything of the kind to say about all the fellows whom you quoted regarding
the binding of the covering on all women today. I wonder why this is?

Please see post three.

(from MARS-List Digest 3915, Feb. 18, 2003)

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Date:
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:39:48 -0700
From:
"Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To:
<mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to Mark Ward and the list (post three of three):

Mark stated:

(4) Concerning Anna the prophetess...
Don's position argues that Anna the prophetess exercised
dominion and usurped authority over men in the temple and
that you cannot LIMIT the "all" of the passage given.

Don had written:
Let me be simple and brief and just take the case of Anna.

"36: And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of
Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and
had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
37: And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years,
which departed not from the temple, but served God with
fastings and prayers night and day. 38: And she coming in
that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake
of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem"
(Lk. 2).

Don continued:
...."Don, do you really believe Anna publicly prophesied and
taught in the temple to both men and women?" I sure do.
Why would I not? This is what we read in Luke 2: 36-38.
There is no way one can limit "all" (pasin). Anna taught
and prophesied (she was a prophetess) to all, men and women
alike. It is untenable to think of "all" as women only or
women and children only. Anna spake of him to all them that
looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Anna was a prophetess
and she prophesied in the temple, publicly and to mixed
audiences. This was her job as a prophetess.

Mark here:
Don, I AGREE that Anna was a prophetess, I AGREE that she
did what the passage ~SAYS she did~ (and could even teach
men in the temple area), but I DISAGREE with your
conclusions. Notice:

Mark denies:
1. Anna taught in a MIXED assembly in such a way as to LEAD
the teaching over men in the temple,
2. Anna exercised dominion or authority over men in the
temple area at any place at anytime with God's blessings.
3. Anna LED the teaching over men in MIXED audiences even
away from the temple with God's approval.
4. That it was the job of prophetesses to teach publicly to
mixed audiences in the sense of exercising
dominion/authority over men in those audiences.

Now, concerning your statement that we can't LIMIT the "all"
in the passage above: The word "all" in Luke 2:38 is a FORM
of the Greek word numbered by STRONG as #3956. A form of
this word is ALSO used in I Cor. 6:12 "ALL things are
lawful, but ALL things are not expedient". The word CAN BE
LIMITED, brother Don...in both of these passages, for
example.

Don comments:

Because of the faulty view Mark has of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, Mark is
forced, alas, to reject plain passages such as Luke 2: 36-38. I understand
that "all" can be and often is limited. However, the context or a modifying
text so limits. Anna was in the temple and she "spake of him to all them
that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Anna was an inspired public
instructor and teacher. Anna taught "all" and there is nothing in the
milieu to limit this "all" to women or children. Men were coming into the
temple to worship and Anna taught them. In view of the work, nature, and
role of the prophetess, she was obviously the exception. She was a public
instructor, making use of her inspired gift of prophesy. This does not mean
that women today are allowed to be public instructors of mixed audiences
because they are not prophetesses. The prophetess and only the prophetess
was allowed to thus teach men. Of course, because Mark does not abide by
"to whom it was spoken," Mark will also abuse I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 (that
is another study).

I want all reading this exchange to understand that while Mark and I are
stressing our points and attempting to expose the believed error of the
other, we do not have personal grudges or venues. We are only interested in
the truth and not personally "wining an argument."

Mark has suggested that after my posts, I submit my question one. To inject
different material into our exchange, I shall ask the following of Mark and
I shall ask Mark to be as concise as possible in his answer. Also, I am not
presently sure as to how many questions I may ask, I may ask fewer than my
allotted five:

Question one:

In what circumstance were the praying or prophesying women at Corinth to
have their head covered:

A. When they were publicly (before or in the presence of others) praying or
prophesying?
B. When they were in private (totally alone, no one else present)?
C. When they were in the presence of a man?
D. When they were in the presence of a woman (no man present)?
E. When they had a role in teaching a man?
F. During a Bible class at home (their families, including their husband)?
G. During a Bible class at home with no man, not even their husband,
present?
H. During a Bible class in the church building (men present)?
I. During the preaching in the assembly (mixed audience and male
preacher)?
J. During the preaching in the assembly with no man present?
K. During public prayer offered by another in the assembly (male leading
the prayer)?

Cordially,
Don Martin dmartin5@concentric.net

Check out our Web sites: http://www.bibletruths.net
Ask a question and receive a Bible answer http://www.biblequestions.org
Simply click on the URL to visit these sites. You may print out
the material for teaching purposes, see the copyright

provision on the home page of Bible Truths.

(from MARS-List Digest 3915, Feb. 18, 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