Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Covering Discussion

The Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Discussion on

I Corinthians 11:1-16

Ward's 13th Article

This is the next article Mark J. Ward writes under the Subject line: Re:I Corinthians 11:1-16...

Mark J. Ward, here to Don Martin and the list:

(Post one of two)

Don is now writing with a little more care in his choice of words, and
that is one bit of progress we have made in this discussion. I want to commend him on that in the most sincere way I know how. Don still, however, asserts many things which are not found in the text of I Corinthians 11:1-16 (which are neither specifically taught therein, nor taught by necessary implication in getting the true sense of the text). I will note that Don does as good a
job as any on contending for the "spiritual gifts position" that assumes (in
Don's specific case):

DON'S POSITION HAS THESE ASSUMPTIONS:
1. "Every woman" doesn't even include every woman at the church of God
at Corinth?
2. "Praying" and "pray" in the text doesn't mean, nor include, normal
uninspired praying?
3. Women were leading prayers and preaching by inspiration in the
assembly in the church of God at Corinth with God's blessing?
4. When, in Don's theory, inspired women prayed in the assembly of the
local church, the other women in the assembly were praying, but not in the
sense that the lady who was LEADING the praying was praying, and therefore did
not have to be covered, and the men in the assembly were praying, but not in
the sense that the lady who was LEADING the praying was praying, and
therefore did not have to be uncovered?
5. The true sense of "every man" in the text is really "every inspired
ONLY prophet"?
6. The true sense of "every woman" in the text is really "every inspired
ONLY prophetess"?
7. Paul's teaching was relative to a custom that existed in the societal
norm of the day that meant something to all the Jews and Greeks who
attended the church of God at Corinth?
8. There was competition between the prophetesses and the prophets and
the use of the covering by women was a way of setting this straight?
9. Whatever the men were doing, the women were doing the same thing in
the same circumstance?
10. There was a "headship" question at Corinth?
11. We should believe Cavender's strong presumptive evidence?

I say the above as pointedly, yet as lovingly as I can in the spirit of
good discussion and pressing the areas of disagreement between us.

Here was the question #5:
QUESTION # 5: Don, in light of the New Testament instruction against
women exercising authority over men, why do you believe that women with
miraculous gifts in the first century were doing so (leading the
assembly in praying or prophesying covered with God's approval), but
others who were praying, men and women, didn't have to obey the
instruction? Scripture please.

Don wrote:
(I Cor. 11: 4, 5). Since Mark also believes the gift of prophecy has
ceased, Mark has to go through a process to have every man and woman
included today. He believes that "every woman..." means every woman at
Corinth and every where else, including "every woman" today.

Mark here:
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, you are getting closer to understanding my position <g>. I believe
that the passage, WHEN WRITTEN, ~included~ application to uninspired men AND
uninspired women since they ALL were part of the "every man" and "every
woman" in the church of God at Corinth; and, for example, they all
PRAYED!

I have pointed out repeatedly that like "teachers of good things" and
"prophet is not without honor, save in his own country" has proper
application to uninspired and/or inspired teachers/prophets, such is the
inclusive nature of prophesying in I Cor. 11! What "process" are you
talking about?

You have quite the hermeneutical "process", brother Don, in trying to
make "praying" and "pray" exclusively miraculously ONLY praying and only when
being LED! You don't even include the "every man" and "every woman" in
the audience who was PRAYING THE SAME PRAYER with the fictious sister at
Corinth that your theory has LEADING miraculous prayer in that mixed assembly!
Now, that's a ~process~! <g>

Don wrote:
I have conceded
that the participles "praying or prophesying" are probably in the
predicate position, but, if this is the case, "praying or prophesying" still
modifies the women under consideration and that Mark's explanation of "every
woman" meaning all women then and now is grammatically incorrect.

Mark here:
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 asserts that my explantion is grammatically incorrect, yet he AGREES
with the grammar points (including the use of the word "or" SEPARATING
praying FROM prophesying), but holds to his assumptive theory. We want
to know wherein he disagrees and are looking for scriptural proof that
"every man" doesn't mean "every man" and "every women" doesn't mean "every
woman"!

Don wrote:
Mark further has argued that since uninspired women were present and followed the prayer being led, they also had to be covered.

He expostulates that since we have "prayer" led today, all women today
must be covered. Again, notwithstanding, this is not what Paul says. I
emphasize: Paul said, "every woman praying or prophesying with her head
uncovered dishonoureth her head...."

Mark here:
Don gets part of it right!

Paul did write, "every woman praying or prophesying with her head
uncovered dishonoreth her head..."

but, DON asserts that the SENSE (meaning of that) is:

"every INSPIRED ONLY PROPHETESS, ONLY WHILE LEADING the miraculous ONLY
praying or the miraculous ONLY prophesying, with her head uncovered
dishonoureth her head." Big difference, I'd say!

Don wrote:
Mark has committed a basic error: He has failed to consider to whom it
was spoken and the circumstances in which it was stated. As I have
repeatedly said, the covering was not ever bound BEFORE I Corinthians 11: 3-16, not
even on prophetesses, is not bound on all women IN the milieu of I
Corinthians 11: 3-16, and is never bound AFTER I Corinthians 11. The
subjects and circumstances along with the meaning of the covering to
those people all comprise an unusual and exceptional situation, not duplicated
in any usual circumstances and teaching.

Mark here:
God only has to teach something ~once~, in His Word for it to be
applicable for this dispensation (i.e. the gospel age) in our WRITTEN
RECORD. Does Don believe that the "covering instruction" is NOT part of
the "whole counsel of God" for this age? I contend that those who were
baptized with the Holy Spirit were able to teach the whole counsel of
God without studying...God gave them the instruction to preach to the
people. Also, there were folks with miraculous gifts of the Spirit (I
Cor. 12). Didn't they teach the whole counsel of God wherever they were
located (including the truth on MDR, the Lord's Supper, contribution on
the first day of the week, church discipline, the coverings we are
studying now, how to worship acceptably, etc etc)? Certainly they did!
So, just because we read of "first day of the week contribution" in I
Cor. 16:1, 2 ONLY (never taught in OUR WRITTEN COPIES OF THE INSPIRED
RECORD before or after, but WAS taught IN that text), we read of "the
coverings for men and women at the times God specified" in I Cor.
11:1-16 ONLY (never taught in OUR WRITTEN COPIES OF THE INSPIRED RECORD
before or after, but was taught IN that particular text). I don't know
how many times the inspired men and women verbally taught the truth of
"first day of the week contribution" OR "the coverings for men and women
at the times God specified" that is NOT RECORDED and neither does Don!
That inspired ORAL instruction was just as binding/authoritative as the
WRITTEN RECORD we have in our New Testaments today, wasn't it? God only
has to teach us something ONCE in the inspired written record for it to
be applicable for us, brother Don. See how easy that is, brother Don?

I believe it is really DON who has committed a basic error. He fails to
consider that it was a SHAME for "every woman" at Corinth to engage in
praying uncovered! Every woman has man as her head, every woman was to
be covered "because of the angels", every women is included in the text!
God says "every woman" brings shame and dishonor if she prays or prophesies
uncovered (verse 5, for example), but Don disagrees by making up a
special class of "prophestesses" who taught by inspiration ONLY (and further
leaps to the bare assumption that they ONLY had to obey the passage when they
LED prayer miraculously or LED inspired only prophesying!) Don doesn't prove
his position from the Bible, he quotes Cavender and makes a three point
argument that is false! Sorry, Don, that ain't good enough. I want to join hands
with you in agreement on God's Word, not on Bill Cavender's assertions that
lack scriptural proof in his writings.

Don wrote:
Public praying or prophesying I do believe is necessarily involved;
hence, the assembly would be one such place where they were praying or prophesying,
I am convinced.

Mark here:
Don is more careful in his writing now and I appreciate that. I see
progress. I AGREE that the assembly would be "one place" (among many)
wherein they were engaging in "praying or prophesying" BUT that doesn't
necessarily infer that the women were LEADING THE ASSEMBLY Don, which
you leap to without scripture. I know you agree with Cavender on this...but
why not Paul? Paul taught that women could NOT exercise authority/dominion
over men which WOULD NECESSARILY INCLUDE assembly activity and Don asserts a
theory (agreed to, at least in part by Cavender and maybe Frost) that
there were lady preachers of inspiration LEADING THE CHURCH in teaching and
praying! Don! Further, you infer (but NOT necessarily, see how we are to be careful
with one another's position...and should be more careful with the WOrd of
God, brother Don), that "public" is ALL that is involved in this teaching,
and not "private". Is that what you believe Don? Do you believe that the
inspired men and inspired women who led prayer in "private" had to obey
the instruction in I Corinthians 11? Tell us please. I am interested in
learning more of your most unusual position. I certainly can't read the answer in
God's Book. And I won't presume to know your position without your
answering for yourself. <g>

Don Martin also wrote:
The whole point of Paul's instruction for the praying or prophesying
women to be covered and the praying or prophesying men to be uncovered was
obviously based on two considerations: (1). These special men and women
were doing the same thing, in the say way, and in the same circumstance
(if not, why was headship a question?),

Mark here:
Don hasn't even begun to "prove" that "obviously" the women were doing
what the men were doing! Dear readers and Don, don't leap to conclusions that
are not in harmony with the rest of the inspired record (i.e. teaching
regarding women NOT exercising authority/dominion over men).

Don ALSO asserts that "headship" was a "question" at Corinth. There is
also NO SCRIPTURE to prove this brother Don. Another
leap/assumption/assertion! Paul placed headship among the reasons that women were to be covered and men uncovered, but there is NO INDICATION in the inspired record until we
get to verse 17 of the chapter concerning the Lord's Supper that Paul was
dealing with a "problem". Paul teaches folks who probably had DIFFERENT CUSTOMS
(Jewish men and women covered; Greek men and women uncovered, at least
possibly at times of prayer <g>) God's will on the subject of covered
and uncovered heads at times of praying or prophesying! Where is the
evidence, Don, that there was a problem in chapter 11 concerning "headship" or
that there was a "question" about it?

Don then continued:
and (2) the meaning of the covering to those people in that culture.

Mark here:
Don has still failed to teach us #2 above from the inspired record. In
fact, Don admits that different people could have had different societal norms
of the day regarding headgear. Scripture brother...let's get to the
scriptures!

I want to thank Don for trying to make an argument from Scripture in
answering my Question #5. Please read the next post (two of two) for
more along the lines of my answer to Don's theory and particularly, his
last post.

In Christian love,
Mark J. Ward
The Religious Instructor
http://www.religiousinstructor.com
The Golden Isles church of Christ
http://www.religiousinstructor.com/church

Mark J. Ward to Don Martin and the list:

(Post two of two)

I continue to respect and appreciate brother Don Martin for so many
things, including his willingness to discuss and have his belief on I
Corinthians 11:1-16 examined. Don takes the "spiritual gifts view" of
the passage and doesn't believe that we "pray or prophesy" like the
meaning of the words in the text of chapter 11, so the passage doesn't
apply. We are pointing out Don's assumptions that are unwarranted, in
the spirit of brotherly love and in the interest of truth and
righteousness. Please read on.

Don wrote:
There are a number of prophetesses (women who prophesied)
mentioned in the Bible (cp. Miriam; Deborah; Huldah; and Anna, Ex. 15:
20, 21; Jud. 4: 4-10; 2 Kgs. 22: 14-20; Lk. 2: 36-38).

Mark here:
The ladies could prophesy YES; but, did they necessarily do so in
violation to the applicable laws (in whatever law age they were living in)
concerning NOT exercising dominion/authority over men? No way!

Don wrote:
Let us now take the full context of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 and see what
we can deduce.

(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:
This is Don's attempt to use scriptural argument, in addition to his
uninspired champion "Cavender". I DO appreciate, so much, Don's attempt
to reason from Scripture...it is truly refreshing after reading so much
from Cavender. Don's reasoning takes another faulty turn above. Please note
the following (that parallels Don's wrong argumentation above) ....

1. Women and men (uninspired, in this example) in New Testament times
were to sing and edify each other with spiritual songs.
2. Women and men (uninspired) existed in the local churches of Christ.
3. Therefore, women (uninspired) were used publicly to LEAD THE SINGING
in the edification of the church in song!

I have just as much a right to LEAP and ASSUME as Don does...NO RIGHT AT
ALL from God. Please read on brother Don and kind readers...

Women and men today are to be involved in edification: in and out of the
local church. But, women today are NOT to LEAD the teaching or LEAD the
praying in the assembly of the church exercising authority/dominion over
men! If Don can see this, he OUGHT to be able to see wherein ladies who
wereprophetesses could be involved in church edification WITHOUT doing what
heboldly, without proof, asserts they did at Corinth, namely exercise
authority/dominion over men anywhere at anytime!

Don wrote:
Again, these special women with the gift of prophecy were the exception
relative to the teaching of I Timothy 2: 12.

Mark here:
Watch it, dear Readers! Don has no basis for his assertion immediately
above. But, Cavender might agree with him. We need sound, scriptural
arguments Don, not assertions that are not unavoidable conclusions! Why
do you hold suchassumptive non-evidence in such high esteem? I am NOT trying to be
unkind,but you don't get this from reading the entire book of I Corinthians!

Don wrote:
To imagine that these gifted women only prophesied to women or to
children is inconsistent with the use and gift of prophecy. When understood in
its context, I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 poses no problem.

Mark here:
I contend that such is NOT the case. There are folks with various
TALENTS (abilities) who are uninspired in the church today. Men are to use their
talents, in accordance with God's instructions and limitations.
Likewise, women are to use their talents, in accordance with God's instructions
and limitations! There is no New Testament instruction that permits women to
exercise dominion over men (whether inspired or uninspired) period.

We will get, Lord willing, to I Cor. 14:34,35 after Don asks me 5
questions. When he offered the invitation for us to ask each other 5 questions each
on BOTH I Cor. 11 and I Cor. 14, I agreed willingly. I do appreciate Don's
efforts, he is trying just as hard as he can to hold up this unusual
theory concerning his special class of women only having to be covered when
they LED the church assembly (and at other public times, maybe private also
Don??? <g>)!

Don continued:
I cannot over emphasize that for the covering to have been bound, these
women and men were in a situation where the "visible sign of authority"
was needed to avert even the impression of insubordination on the part of
the female prophets (I Cor. 11: 10).

Mark here:
Women and men are to appear differently in this law age. Such was the
case in other law ages, as a matter of interest (but I am NOT using OT
passages as a matter of NT law today, NT passages do that <g>).

Don goes Cavender on us:
I opened my file on the katakalupto (the covering) tonight and I would
like to share with you a statement from Bill Cavender from his booklet, "The
Woman and her Covering." "On the very surface of our study it is
suggested that what the man was doing, the woman was doing; what the woman was
doing, the man was doing. This is the basis of the problem that existed. Had
the woman been 'praying or prophesying' under different circumstances,
conditions and times, there would have been no problem. But they were
both doing the same thing in the same way under the same circumstances. Thus
the solution to the problem was that the woman praying or prophesying do so
veiled; the man praying or prophesying do so unveiled" (pg. 10).

One more quote, Bill aptly states regarding "praying" in the expression
"praying or prophesying" thus: "The 'praying or prophesying' in I
Corinthians 11: 2-16 was that which was done under the direct influence
of the Holy Spirit. The subjects doing the 'praying or prophesying' were
inspired people....Since the 'praying' of I Corinthians 11: 4, 5 is
joined to the 'prophesying' and prophesying is ALWAYS inspired teaching, and
since both the 'praying' and 'prophesying' are adjectives (participles)
modifying the same man the same woman, there is here strong presumptive evidence
that the 'praying' is inspired praying and not ordinary prayers of
uninspired people" (Ibid. pg. 5,17).

Mark here:
What "problem" at Corinth? I didn't catch the verse that either Cavender
or Don Martin used to PROVE this! We don't read in the inspired record that
there was a problem concerning the instruction in verses 1-16.
Uninspired commentators theorize many things...so do Cavender and Martin. Why base
a belief on "conjecture" when we have all we need in what is revealed in
the inspired record? Don, I would want you to hold my feet to the fire if I
were making such bare assertions that are not unavoidably warranted from the
text!

My question specifically asked for ~scripture~ to answer the question
#5. My good brother Don made a faulty argument from I Corinthians 11 & 14 that
we have shown to be incorrect (i.e. the conclusion was not "necessary" from
the first two statements). Don also appeals to Cavender, which is his right.
The fair reader sees that brother Wiser readily answers brother Cavender's
~assumptive non-evidence~ in his booklet, "A Reply to Bill Cavender's,
'The Woman and Her Covering.' by Wendell Wiser" at:

http://www.religiousinstructor.com/cover/wreply.html

God's Word on the matter doesn't ring true with the bare assertions
above. Note the "strong presumptive evidence" line in the statement above!
Reckon we ought to join hands and base our faith that comes by hearing and
hearing by the Word of God on "strong presumptive evidence???" Not on your life!

Don writes:
I think I have answered Mark's final question as to why I think these
special women at Corinth were publicly exercising their gift of prophecy
in a circumstance that involved not only males, but prophets doing the same
thing. The reason all women were not instructed to be covered then and
now is because those uninspired women were not in a situation of being
viewed as competing with their male counter-parts. The uninspired woman came under
the teaching of I Timothy 2: 12. This is why the special teaching
relative to the covering has no applicability to women today. The situation is
impossible to duplicate because we have no prophets or prophetesses
today (I Cor. 13: 8-10).

Mark here:
There is NOTHING in the text that teaches us that there was any such
"competition" among the prophets and the prophetesses! Don tells us how
he got to where he is today on the subject matter. Take the Bible, give it
to folks who haven't read uninspired commentators like Cavender and Martin and Frost...and ask them to read I Cor. 11 (after reading the whole book of I Corinthians, for example)
and see if they come up with this "spiritual gifts theory". I believe that
brother Gene Frost (in our generation, dear readers) is attributed with
coming up with this idea. If true, let's embrace it. But, don't fall for
"strong presumptive evidence???" (so-called) that is really no "evidence"
at all, from the Scriptures.

Mark here:
Note the question again, dear Don and readers....

QUESTION # 5: Don, in light of the New Testament instruction against
women exercising authority over men, why do you believe that women with
miraculous gifts in the first century were doing so (leading the
assembly in praying or prophesying covered with God's approval), but
others who were praying, men and women, didn't have to obey the
instruction? Scripture please.

Mark here:
Remember (above) that Don wrote, "The subjects and circumstances along
with the meaning of the covering to those people all comprise an unusual and
exceptional situation, not duplicated in any usual circumstances and
teaching."

Now, please consider a woman at Corinth who was UNINSPIRED who learned
something that was TRUE who gets up and addresses the assembly of God at
Corinth. Don, was this lady ~wrong~ according to your present
understanding? Don ASSERTS that with the "gift of prophecy" the ladies got special
permission to exercise authority OVER MEN! Isn't that true Don? I don't
want to misrepresent your position, I just want to try to understand it and
test it in light of INSPIRED REVELATION, not Cavender <g>.

The reason I bring this up is that such is interesting now (on the I
Cor. 11 study), but will be even more interesting when we get to chapter 14 and
study verses 34,35. Remember wherein Don begins to leave what is taught
specifically in the text and LEAPS to assumptive positions that are not
really warranted by the text, context and other teaching in the New
Testament on the subject. It is really interesting to read tho', brother

Don, about how you believe that God allowed this special group of women
to LEAD the church assembly in praying or prophesying and exercise dominion
over the men in those gatherings! I just wish you could point to
SCRIPTURE to allow us to believe it too!

Again, I press my points not to be unkind, but in the spirit of
brotherly love and in the interest of truth and righteousness! I love my good
brother Don and appreciate him for so many things that he teaches and for the
good work he does in laboring in the kingdom of God. The work done at the
websites he teaches at are very good, in the main (I only disagree on a
few subjects <g>).

God bless us all as we continue to grow and "rightly divide God's word"
in being good soldiers of the Cross and children of the King! I look
forward to Don's reply and continuing this good discussion.

In Christian love,
Mark J. Ward
The Religious Instructor
http://www.religiousinstructor.com
The Golden Isles church of Christ
http://www.religiousinstructor.com/church

(From MARS-List Digest 3893, February 12, 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