The Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Discussion on
I Corinthians 11:1-16
Ward's 11th Article
This is the next article Mark J. Ward writes under the Subject line: Re:I Corinthians 11:1-16...
Re: I Corinthians 11:1-16
Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:31:43 -0500
"Mark J. Ward" <email@example.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Mark J. Ward, here to Don Martin and the list,
I appreciate Don's demeanor and tone in this on-going study. We
disagree, but are not "mad" at each other. Note what Don had written
earlier in this discussion:
In his last post Don wrote:
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.
When an uninspired brother taught at Corinth what could only be known by
divine inspiration (something revealed to one with a gift/miraculous who
had taught the uninspired), that brother was "prophesying", Don. My
inclusive definition allows this. (Aaron was a prophet like this at
times, regarding Moses getting it from God, Moses telling Aaron, etc.)
Furthermore, when ALL the brethren at Corinth "prayed" (inspired or
uninspired , whether ~led~ by a person exercising a spiritual gift or
not) "every man" and "every woman" was to uncover and cover their heads
respectively! They were "praying", Don! They really were! You change
God's Word from "every man (form of ~aner~ Gk.)" to "every PROPHET (no
Gk to support it since a form of ~aner~ is used)". That is one of the
FIRST of your fatal mistakes that launches you into an uninspired
sentence structure that takes you off into your exclusive view.
Let's substitute again (using Don's argumentation above), " I thought
the point relative to I Cor. 11 was authority for women/men today to not
shame/dishonor before God at times of praying, at least this has been my
thrust. It is true that miraculous gifts were present and that some
members at Corinth had miraculous abilities, however, such is
incidental. The point is that "every man" and "every woman" in the
church at Corinth were "praying" together. 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
EXCLUSIVELY doing something unusual and extraordinary that is being
considered for duplication today, such as "MIRACULOUS ONLY praying or
INSPIRED ONLY prophesying."
See the point? Don ~excludes~ by his definition and doesn't engage in a
thorough discussion of the weaknesses on his position regarding
"praying", for example, that we have put before him (in our estimation).
I could admit, for the sake of argument only, as already pointed out,
that prophesying" WAS inspired ONLY and STILL have "praying" today. Don
assumes too much and can't be SURE and can't KNOW that "praying" is
MIRACULOUS ONLY and then LIMITED TO THOSE LEADING, at that! Where do you
get ~that~ from the Holy Writ, Don?
Don had written earlier in this study:
(1). The head covering did not apply to all saved women of the first
century (only the praying or prophesying women).
(2). The head covering does not have the meaning in our society as it
did to the people at Corinth.
(3). We do not have praying (miraculous and public) or prophesying
(miraculous and public) women today (I Cor. 13: 8-10).
Mark, may I kindly say that every argument you make is refuted by the
foregoing fundamental truths. (from MARS-List 3833, January 24, 2003)
The above is truly representative of the issues that divide us in
reaching agreement (at this time) on this good study. What "society"
thought about baptism, unleavened bread, coverings, etc does not change
God's New Testament instruction on the matter! Paul said that he and God
would HAVE THEM KNOW some things. What does that sound like to you,
re-emphasizing current custom/culture? Does it sound like Paul was
basing the reasons God gave for covering/uncovering on societies' norm
of the day? Certainly not! The instruction stands and is to be obeyed in
EVERY CULTURE throughout the NT dispensation.
Don admits that his position restricts the instruction as being
1. ONLY the inspired men/women (he uses the uninspired sentence
structure "praying and/or prophesying men/women" (we have previously
shown the error associated with this abuse of the participles),
2. ONLY those folks (these "special, exclusive men and women") when they
were LEADING the "praying or prophesying
3. and we are not sure, but will ask <g> ONLY in "public settings"
(meaning only in public assemblies of the local church OR only in public
places including outside assemblies of the local church, whether in
church-arranged non-assembly settings or individual-arranged
non-assembly settings)? (Don has said "especially" in church gatherings,
but we STILL DON'T KNOW Don, what you believe concerning non-church
"public" and PRIVATE settings. What say ye, brother?
Don DOES, in my estimation, misrepresent my position (See one area noted
by one asterisk and another area noted by the second asterisk). He
continues to deny that he does. This may one reason why we are not
together on this subject matter. PLEASE note, carefully, the following
*Don had written:... It is just this simple. Mark must make the
"praying" natural and the "prophesying" only uninspired teaching and
then must bind a matter that was emblematic of subjugation to them but
not to us (the head covering) on all women today to arrive at his
position." And then, when I called him on it he wrote: " 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 believe that the ~proper interpretation and application~ of I
Corinthians 11:1-16 includes "every man" and "every woman" (whether
uninspired or inspired) at the times of "praying or prophesying"
(whether inspired activity or uninspired actions). The ~application~, of
necessity, that I would make of this passage ~today in 2003~ (NOT the
~interpretation~, mind you) would HAVE TO BE to only those uninspired,
for there are no inspired folks living today! But, please do not let Don
fool you into believing that Mark believes for one nano-second that the
instruction (properly ~interpreted~) EXCLUDES inspired activity. Don
excludes uninspired activity and, on top of that... those who are NOT
LEADING. Paul and God, however, included EVERY man and EVERY woman
(whether inspired or uninspired), for example (whether inspired or
uninspired) that was involved in praying (NOT just LEADING, at that)
whether IN or OUT of assemblies (public???) of the church.
Don, however, if I truly understand his position correctly (and folks,
please don't assign ~all aspects of Don's position~ to any other
brethren, including Frost and Cavender), would have the instruction in
our text as being ONLY to the men/women who were inspired, ONLY when
they were LEADING, and ONLY in public settings? ??
** Further misrepresentation is made by my brother Don Martin concerning
my position when he tells Lora, "Don comments: First, Lora, thank you
for your interest in the covering issue. As you know, Mark Ward
believes the covering matter is binding on all "praying and prophesying"
women today." (from MARS-List Digest 3863, February 3, 2003)
I use the "inspired sentence structure" Don (every man and every
woman...praying or prophesying), not your "uninspired sentence
structure" (every praying and prophesying man/woman) that changes the
"subjects" incorrectly in the inspired text. The ~subjects~ of the text
are "every man" (of verse 3, 4) and "the woman"/"every woman" (vs 3, 5).
The study on participles (from MARS-List 3825, January 23, 2003) showed
that "praying or prophesying" is telling WHEN, not WHO, Don. The WHO is
"every man" and "every woman" in the inspired record. I make a
distinction, in my position regarding this and I ask you to note that
distinction, please. You may NOT agree with it, but please note it and
don't misrepresent me, good brother! Those who carefully are following
this study know that since DON makes a point of "the praying and
prophesying woman" that such has to be significantly dealt with since
what he makes of it is NOT what the inspired record does (i.e. "every
woman" and "every man" and NOT "every PROPHET" and "every PROPHETESS").
Don is to be thanked for his response in clarifying his belief on verse
7. He gives all Bs, as you will recall to the multiple choice we put
before him. Don believes the passage's sense is: "For ONLY AN INSPIRED
ONLY PROPHET WHILE LEADING ONLY indeed ought not to cover THE INSPIRED
ONLY PROPHET'S (italicized <g>) head WHILE LEADING ONLY forasmuch as THE
INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET is the image and glory of God: but the INSPIRED
ONLY PROPHETESS is the glory of the INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET"! We
appreciate Don helping us understand more of his unusual position and
what he believes we should all take as God's truth on the matter. Such
an interpretation and application is forced and is not a natural, proper
understanding of the passage, in my humble estimation. BTW, let's don't
forget what God says in verse 7, "For a man indeed ought not to cover
his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman
is the glory of the man." Don takes passages to "every man" and makes it
"only inspired prophets only when leading". Don forces "praying" and
"pray" to be exclusively miraculous prayer!
Mark makes special note:
I want to commend our brother Don Martin for admitting the following!
Don Martin wrote:
...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.
I appreciate the honesty and integrity of Don Martin above, .... the
~possibility~ of prayer being inspired and in view of its association
with "prophesying," ~in all likelihood~ being inspired,...
Don, I can't base my belief that "praying" and "pray" as found in our
text (and as questioned of you in my Question #1) is MIRACULOUS ONLY
based on a mere possibility OR all likelihood, in light of the ordinary,
normal meaning of prayer. You admit it is only a "POSSIBILITY" and that
such is, in your opinion, "IN ALL LIKELIHOOD" inspired prayer! You have
NOT dealt with the fact that the strong counter to this includes:
a. praying is FIRST mentioned,
b. we have just as much right to reason FROM praying (normal meaning
being UNINSPIRED) TO prophesying in this text as you do FROM prophesying
TO praying in attempting to rightly divide God's Word.
c. the Holy Spirit SEPARATED the two actions by the word OR in the text
d. It is ALSO possible, as has been noted by other capable students of
God's Word, that "praying or prophesying" COULD BE an elliptical
expression including ALL uninspired (praying) worship activities, or ALL
"inspired" (prophesying) worship activities. See below:
"...A. It may be that prayer and prophecy are elliptical expressions for
the whole of public worship, in which case only two acts are mentioned
but all acts are included (as in Acts 20:7 only one, the breaking of
bread, is mentioned by synecdoche and includes the cup; or as in I Cor.
13:8-10 only three spiritual gifts are said to cease, yet all are
meant). When Jesus cast those out of the temple who were selling, he
said, "My house shall be called a house of prayer" (Matt. 21:13). Isnt
prayer here simply an elliptical expression for worship? Would Jesus
have driven them out if they had been studying Gods word or singing his
praise? Also, the Pulpit Comm. Vol. 6 page 399 says of prophesy,
"sometimes, it seems to stand, in a very general way, for sharing in
religious worship". B. If it is assumed that prophecy always means
inspired speech, another possibility is that in prayer and prophecy, a
person is in direct communication with God (in prophecy, God speaks to
man; in prayer man speaks to God, hence the special need for
significance during such. C. If prophecy always means inspired speech,
another possibility would be: the covering applies whether in inspired
activity (prophecy) or uninspired (prayer). D. Still another: some are
of the opinion that the women, thinking that since they are one in
Christ with the men are not therefore in subjection to him, were
removing the covering at these specific times. All of these are inter-
-3- esting, but the fact is: we are not told why at these times but not
at other times.
It is important to note that the injunctions of the passage do not deal
with women only but include men as well. As can be seen from the next
verse, whatever covering that this verse forbids a mans wearing, verse
five commands a woman to wear. Whatever covering a man must leave off, a
woman must put on."
from Hiram O. Hutto's COMMAND OR CUSTOM?? Pgs 3,4 found at:
Please pay careful attention to the reply by my friend and good brother
Don Martin as he continues to answer questions and contend for what he
sincerely believes to be the truth of God's Word. Many men today are not
willing to have their beliefs tested in such an examination forum as
this and Don is to be greatly commended for it.
I may be having to travel to Artesia, New Mexico with my secular job
(unexpected travel) and would be away, tentatively, until February 14th
or so. I may or may not be able to get to computers with internet access
for long periods of time, due to the requirements of my job while I am
out there. I hope to know soon. I want to encourage the readership to
review our study and read Don's forthcoming reply with care. Take up
your Bibles, read the text, read the arguments and come to your own
convictions on this good Bible study. I will take up, Lord willing,
Question 5, upon my return. My apologies to the list and especially to
Don who anxiously awaits Question #5 <g>. This could not be prevented.
In Christian love,
Mark J. Ward
The Religious Instructor
The Golden Isles church of Christ
(From MARS-List Digest 3867, February 4, 2003
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE NEXT ARTICLE
CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS STUDY
[Editors 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 email@example.com]
Email the Editor at firstname.lastname@example.org
| CURRENT ISSUE | MAIN PAGE | BACK ISSUES | DISCUSSION PAGE |
| SPECIAL STUDIES | SERMON OUTLINES |