The Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Discussion on
I Corinthians 11:1-16
Ward's Eighth 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
Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:18:19 -0500
"Mark J. Ward" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Mark J. Ward, here to Don Martin and the list, (Post ONE of TWO)
I am enjoying the discussion and study with my friend and brother, Don
Martin, on certain aspects of the teaching of I Corinthians 11:1-16. In
this post I will reply to Don's last post, with the exception of his
reply to my Question 4. I will respond to that reply later this weekend,
Lord willing. Don, if I overlooked anything you believe to be
significant, such is not my intent, please bring it to my attention.
There are inferences that you are interested in what I believe in
certain areas of the text, and I certainly believe that, Lord willing,
we will be getting to those when you are asking the questions. I never
want to dodge or leave off opptys to teach, but I realize the length of
the posts could hinder the readership. I pray that only good will come
from these efforts in studying together, pressing and questioning each
other's positions, and in trying to point out strengths and weaknesses
in efforts to bring unity of belief and practice on God's Truth. Thanks,
Let me hasten to what I understand to be the important points Don
stresses, as well as critical mistakes he continues to make (as I
understand them to be mistakes) in his last post:
Mark has sought to reduce "praying" to natural praying and "prophesying"
to natural or uninspired teaching. Of course, we do not know when Mark
binds the "covering" (prayer or teaching matters) or what Mark's idea of
the covering is.
Mark replies with love:
The above is NOT altogether accurate. Don "begs the question" here (in
that he assumes the thing that is yet unproven: namely, that "praying",
"pray", and "prophesying" in this text are miraculous ONLY). In reality,
praying, for example, would have to ~start out as being inspired and
uninspired~ for either of us to be "reducing" its definition, Don.
Regarding these actions being "inspired/miraculous ONLY", such is NOT
axiomatic, tho' Don asserts such. Don, how can we KNOW and BE SURE???
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. Actually, it is Don (who would
probably admit to it on "praying", at least) who ~reduces~ the meaning
of "praying or prophesying" to INSPIRED ONLY and possibly to ONLY THOSE
LEADING??? (Since he believes the "normal, ordinary" meaning of praying
Don, are you ~reducing~ "praying or prophesying" in this text (and thus
the one to whom the instruction would be applicable) to EXCLUSIVELY the
ONE whom you believe to be:
- INSPIRED ONLY???
- who is LEADING ??? (meaning the "followers" would not have to obey the
text, even while praying with the one leading???)
- in PUBLIC ONLY settings???
I am beginning to think this is your position. Please correct if I am
wrong on this. Thanks.
Don has not told us why it would be more important for a woman who was
INSPIRED who was praying to be covered (given the God-given reasons in
the text) than for an UNINSPIRED woman who prays.
Don also wrote:
I do believe that there is a dire misunderstanding too often in the
church as to the reality and work of a special group of women called
prophetesses. They used their gift of prophesy (cp. I Cor. 12: 10) to
issue inspired teaching and foretelling in public. It is regarding such
women at Corinth that Paul issued the special teaching that they have on
a head dress (covering) when praying or prophesying. It is apparent
that in the context, that the "praying" is also inspired and public.
Hence, the reason for the covering.
Don again asserts and assumes concerning that which is not taught in the
inspired record. First, Don assumes that "praying or prophesying" is
INSPIRED ONLY action and now, I THINK we are supposed to accept it is
LIMITED to PUBLIC ONLY settings and to those LEADING ONLY????
Don again teaches "it is apparent"...that the "praying" is also inspired
and public...Don, do you mean LEADING IN PRAYER ONLY??? (as opposed to
praying with another who leads the prayer). Don, when you say "public",
do you mean in "assembly only" settings of the local church? If so, how
do you KNOW this is the case and how can we BE SURE such is the case?
Why wouldn't the instruction INCLUDE "outside church assembly" praying
or prophesying (i.e. public OR private) given Paul's God-given reasons
FOR the women to be covered when praying? Are you ~reducing~ again here,
Don wrote (in his last post):
I do not mean to be disrespectful, but if I came into an assembly today
in which there was a woman having on a covering that met the
requirements of the katakalupto (translated "veil" in the American
Standard Version, I Cor. 11: 6), I would think there was a Muslim
visitor, a practitioner of Islam. I would not view that woman as
visibly saying by the covering that she was under headship (vs. 3).
Besides, the woman would not be "praying or prophesying,"
before, Don had written (along the same line):
The head covering being discussed in I Corinthians 11: 3-16 had meaning
to those people, it was emblematic of subjugation and recognition of
headship. When I see a head covering today in the American culture, I
immediately associate it with Islam. This is because the covering is not
part of our culture. Remember that the covering was only bound on
praying or prophesying women because it meant subjection in that
culture. However, my friend Mark wants to take the covering that had a
special meaning to those people at that time and was only bound on
praying or prophesying women and apply it to all female Christians in a
culture that has no recognition of the head covering. (from MARS-List
Digest 3827, January 22, 2003)
Mark kindly replies:
On more than one occasion, I have noticed brother Don refer to the
"Muslim" woman in this study. He noted, see above, that when he sees a
woman today in an assembly of Christians wearing a covering, that such
reminds him of Muslims and Islam. Funny, it reminds me of I Cor. 11!
(Paul's teaching was NOT about culture, Don, it was instruction that God
would "have them know". This instruction ~may have been contrary~ to
BOTH Jewish religious culture (what the men were used to doing) and
contrary to the Gentile religious culture (what the women were used to
doing) who were those who comprised the Christians who made up the
church at Corinth. See Acts 18:8; I Cor. 10:1; Rom. 15:26,27).
(Commentators disagree on this...kinda like Don and I agree on the
inspired text's meaning.) This is also noted by ...YES (you guessed it)
W. E. Vine, when he wrote: "W.E. Vine, Commentary on 1 Corinthians:
"Among the Jews the heads of the men were covered in the synagogue.
Among the Greeks both men and women were uncovered"."
(taken from Hiram O. Hutto's, COMMAND OR CUSTOM? page 14
But "culture" does not enter into God's reasons for the instruction in
this text, Don, for God is NOT REGULATING head coverings AT TIMES OTHER
THAN (i.e. at non-religious cultural times) "praying or prophesying".
Don, haven't you been trying to argue that Paul's teaching in I Cor. 11
was IN HARMONY with the culture of the day? See the point?
I have also been to Catholic services, as a visitor/observer, in the
past, and have noted that some of the women were wearing a covering on
their heads. Didn't remind me of Islam at all, Don. I thought about I
Cor. 11. How about that? <g> But guess what??? This doesn't prove a
point at all concerning the proper interpretation of the text, now does
it good brother? But it does let us know ~what you think~, brother Don,
and that ~is important~ (I mean that in all seriousness, in the sense
that in Bible study, we need to communicate accurately and know, if
possible, where the other person is coming from) with regards to trying
to resolve our differences of understanding on this Bible instruction.
Sometimes, it is very helpful when someone else lets us know what they
are thinking. It ~can make a difference~, in our attempts to teach them
properly God's Will (as we understand it to be).
Don later wrote:
Why does Mark persist in wanting to remove "praying" from the syntax and
context of I Corinthians 11 and separately consider it?
Mark responds kindly, with love:
Don, the "syntax" HAS the word "or" in the text. It ALSO has "every man"
and "every woman" in the text. God was giving instruction that he would
~have THEM know~ (the inspired AND uninspired brethren at Corinth, and
elsewhere per I Cor. 4:17). Also, uninspired women and uninspired men in
the church at Corinth could "pray" without LEADING the prayer, for
example, in or out of assemblies at Corinth! The church engaged in
prayer and ALL the saints were involved in "praying", even when a prayer
~was led by a person exercising a spiritual/miraculous gift~ like
tongues, for example. These are things that are IN the context, Don, of
the first century church there at Corinth, specifically those to whom
Paul wrote. Therefore, I have NOT removed, as you contend, "praying"
from the syntax and context of I Cor. 11, my good brother.
I am not sure, but THINK that you don't even believe that the "inspired
prophetesses" had to cover their heads when praying with men who LED the
prayers? Is this accurate, Don? Do you ONLY believe that the inspired
ladies had to COVER when they were LEADING either: the praying OR the
prophesying? And, that the inspired men ONLY had to be uncovered when
they were LEADING either: the praying OR the prophesying? (You have
already asserted that you believe the uninspired men could pray covered
and the uninspired women could pray bareheaded when being LED in prayer
by an inspired prophetess in the assembly of the local church of God at
Corinth WITH God's blessings!!! even tho the BIBLE SAYS, " 4 EVERY MAN
(emp mine, mjw) praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
dishonoureth his head. 5 But EVERY WOMAN (emp mine, mjw) that prayeth or
prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is
even all one as if she were shaven.").
Don then wrote:
Without getting meticulously and painstakingly particular, Paul is
addressing the matter of praying and prophesying involving prophets and
prophetesses and how they were to do what they were doing in the
Don again gets part of it right, and then, in my estimation, leaps on to
an assumption that is not warranted by the text. Paul addresses the
matter of "covered and uncovered heads" at times of "praying or
prophesying", but does so for "EVERY MAN" and "EVERY WOMAN" (vs3-5) and
not inspired ONLY prophets/prophetesses as Don asserts (and NOT only, if
we are correct in understanding Don's belief, when LEADING). A fair
examination of the text reveals this truth to those studying this text.
Don's sense of the proper interpretation would have the passage saying,
"Every INSPIRED ONLY prophet only while LEADING miraculous ONLY prayer
or only while LEADING prophesying by inspiration ONLY, having his head
covered, dishonoreth his head." Is that what we should believe as ~God's
truth on this~, brother Don? That's what we want to believe, ~only God's
truth on this~ (and all other) subject(s).
There is no teaching BEFORE Acts 20: 7, AFTER Acts 20: 7, or IN Acts 20:
7 to limit the observance of the Lord's Supper to those who possessed a
spiritual, supernatural gift. The fact that Paul was present and
partook of the supper does not limit the partaking to only the
miraculously endowed or require that such a person be present so that
others can partake. Mark's example has backfired on him.
Mark gladly responds:
I want to THANK Don for writing the above. He is trying his best to
engage me on what he truly believes to be the truth of the matter. I
would like to point out to Don, and the careful reader, what has
happened so far in this discussion (in a very general way) concerning
1. Don has asserted that due to his understanding that "prophesying" in
the text of I Cor. 11:1-16 is "inspired ONLY", he has asserted that
"praying" and "pray" in those verses are miraculous prayer ONLY.
2. Don has also reasoned, that since we don't have the "subjects" of I
Cor. 11:1-16 living today, namely folks who would be "praying or
prophesying men/women" (who did these things by miraculous gifts ONLY),
then the instruction concerning covered/uncovered heads would not be
3. Then, I made up a parallel (not identical, mind you, but parallel)
argument concerning us today then (according to Don's reasoning on his
belief of I Cor. 11 being "special, limiting and exclusive"), not being
able to use Acts 20:7 as authority concerning ~first day of the week~
observance of the Lord's Supper.
4. Don writes back as why "my argument/reasoning on Acts 20:7" (which I
believe is actually HIS reasoning on I Cor. 11 <g>) when applied to Acts
20:7, is faulty...that would be my point, Don! If you would just apply
what you KNOW about us being ABLE TO USE Acts 20:7 today to I Cor.
Please read carefully below, as we will use ~Don's argumentation above~
and substitute the particulars for our study with regards to the
coverings of I Cor. 11....
There is no teaching BEFORE I Corinthians 11:1-16, AFTER I Corinthians
11:1-16, or IN I Corinthians 11:1-16 to limit the "every woman" and
to those who possessed a spiritual, supernatural gift. The fact that
there were SOME INSPIIRED BRETHREN who were present in the church of God
at Corinth who would have to follow the instruction while engaging in
"praying or prophesying" does not limit the obedience of the men/women
of that congregation being uncovered/covered to
ONLY the miraculously endowed or require that such gifts exist today for
the passage to apply.
See how easy that was, Don?
Don then wrote:
There is also the special cultural meaning that was then attached to the
Don we are STILL looking for the inspired VERSE to support your
assertion that "cultural meaning" plays any part in the God-given
reasons in I Cor. 11:1-16 for "every man" and "every woman" to be
uncovered/covered at the times specified.
But, for the sake of argumentation, and in the interest of truth let's
assume that Don was right on this for a moment (i.e. that there was
special cultural meaning that was then attached to the covering <g>).
Paul set forth God's instruction then that was probably CONTRARY TO the
"cultural meaning" of the Greeks and CONTRARY TO the "cultural meaning"
of the Jews of that day with regard to certain religious settings. But,
he did NOT CHANGE what their respective (Jewish/Greek) cultural meanings
would be AT TIMES OTHER THAN "praying or prophesying" (for he was NOT
regulating them at those times), but rather, Paul gave us God's Will for
this dispensation to "every man" and "every woman" at TIMES OF praying
Don's argumentation seems to be that Paul's instruction in I Corinthians
11:1-16 was in DIRECT HARMONY with the cultural practices of the Jews &
Greeks of the day (since they co-existed at the church of God at Corinth
per Acts 18:8; I Cor. 10:1; Rom. 15:26,27 )! How could that be when it
appears that they were DIFFERENT in there cultural practices, Don? But
this doesn't prove the point Don seeks to make and is really a
non-issue...since Paul's instruction was NOT based on the "cultural
meaning" OF THAT DAY.
(to be continued in Post Two of Two)
In Christian love,
Mark J. Ward
The Religious Instructor
The Golden Isles church of Christ
(from MARS-List 3856, February 1, 2003)
Re: I Corinthians 11:1-16
Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:19:49 -0500
"Mark J. Ward" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Mark J. Ward here, continuing to Don Martin and the listers,
(POST TWO OF TWO)
I continue to examine Don's last post (with the exception of his reply
to Question #4, which will come later)
Don then wrote:
Mark wrote nothing, as I recall, regarding my extensive quotation from
W. E. Vine
Thayer says of the prophet (propheteia, noun), "...discourse emanating
from divine inspiration...." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 552).
Regarding Mark's above, Thayer says of the verb propheteuo and alludes
to I Corinthians 11: 4, 5 as follows: "...to break forth under sudden
impulse in lofty discourse or in praise of the divine counsels...or,
under the like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort
others...I Cor. 11: 4, 5....." (Ibid.).
...They miraculously foretold events to come and delivered God breathed
...This statement was made in the setting of spiritual gifts and
miraculous impetus (see I Cor. 14: 1ff.).
...I believe it is axiomatic that the prayer thus mentioned was also
We have shown earlier in our discussions why it can't be "axiomatic"
(and again in this post) that prayer was inspired ONLY in I Cor. 11.
Also, I have NOT argued that "prophesying" DOES NOT include inspired
speech. I have argued and shown proof, very early in my writings, Don
(Thayer's "D" definition "...to teach..." which is NOT exclusively
inspired), that prophesying should INCLUDE inspired or uninspired
teaching. I also referred to the biblical use of the word "prophet" in
Titus 1:12, wherein Paul (the same writer of I Corinthians, BTW) chose
to use the word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Don agrees that this
takes place in the inspired record, but calls this an unusual use of the
word prophet <g>. Don had written previously in this discussion: "...The
idea, though, is that they claimed to be prophets, but in reality they
were false prophets (cp. Tit. 1:12). Such a use of "prophet" does not
negate the normal and common meaning." (from MARS-List Digest 3816,
January 20, 2003). I would remind Don (and the good readers of this)
that it was an INSPIRED APOSTLE PAUL that called him "a prophet" in
Titus 1:12. Surely, Don agrees this was an inspired use (Paul's use) of
the word "prophet" (referring to one who was uninspired) that spoke the
truth! He just excludes it from having a bearing on our study wherein we
Don has been willing to admit, that the primary, normal meaning of
"praying" and "pray" is non-miraculous. Don has even admitted that the
Holy Spirit separated "prophesying" from "praying" with the word "or" in
the text of our study. Why does Don, then, reduce it? Because it is
found in a setting wherein there were spiritual gifts, he reasons. We
have shown that such is not demanded. Also, we have pointed out that
"every man" and "every woman" were being taught and addressed at the
church of God at Corinth (some with and some without miraculous
gifts...and ALL would be involved in "praying").
But, I don't want Don to think that I have written "nothing", concerning
his extensive quote from W.E. Vine <g>. (Please note at least VINE
commenting on the uninspired PROPHET in Titus 1:12 in the quotes to
follow. Also, note page 222, at "g" ,on Titus 1:12, in Vine's Expository
Dictionary of NT Words).
I thot about quoting ALL of several pages (pgs. 8-12 from brother
Wiser's treatment of the "spiritual gifts position" and definition of
words, but I will simply ask Don and the readership to go to my website
and read those pages in FULL. I will now clip from from brother Wiser's
tract with regards to words and their use/definition in this
text/context, trying to do no injustice to that writing or to the truth.
This is to keep the length of this post down. The clips will be noted as
being between the astericks in this post. Thanks.
IS OURS A "FALSE DEFINITION?"
According to Bro. Cavender, the second basic error is a false
definition given the words "praying
or prophesying". P.5. First of all I want to consider the various
scholars he introduced, with
reference to a prophet and prophesying. Under "Definitions of The
Words", on Page II, he
quotes a part of what Adam Clarke says in his commentary on Gen.
.... The only thing I want to do is show that these authorities do not
agree with Bro. Cavender and he did wrong to quote from them as though
they did. Bro. Cavender thinks "prophet" always means one who
speaks by divine inspiration and prays by divine inspiration. His
authorities do not agree with
him, as we shall observe when we quote some things Bill conveniently
overlooked. First of all
let's observe a quotation from his tract. He said, " 'Prophesying'
was ALWAYS a spiritual gift,
done by inspired people, either men or women. Inspired prayers
accompanied the prophesying,
and many prophecies were in prayer and hymn form. NEVER in the Bible
ordinary, common teaching. " (P.5). Adam Clarke did not agree with
him. No one can read
Clarke's comments and honestly get the idea that Abraham's prayers
were given to him directly
from God by the Holy Spirit. Clarke says, "Abraham certainly was not
a prophet in the present
general acceptation of the term, and for the Hebrew "nabi", we must
seek some other meaning."
Adam Clarke's Commentary on Gen. P.130. .........
... Clarke did not say Abraham
was a prophet, in the present general acceptation of the term.
Neither did Clarke say Abraham's
prayers were inspired. Now let's observe some more quotations from
Adam Clarke. "The title
was also given to men eminent for eloquence and for literary
abilities; hence Aaron, because he
was the spokesman of Moses to the Egyptian king, was termed nabi,
prophet; Exod. 4:16; 7:1.
And Epimenides, a heathen poet, is expressly styled prophatas a
prophet, by St. Paul, Tit. 1:12,
just as poets in general were termed vates among the Romans, which
properly signifies the
persons who professed to interpret the will of the gods to their
votaries, after prayers and
sacrifices duly performed. " (Clarke, Op. cit., Pg. 130). 1 wonder
if Bro. Cavender believes the
heathen poet, Epimenides, was inspired in his prayers and teaching?
...EDERSHEIM AND GEIKIE ON PROPHETS
Now, I want us to observe some quotations from Alfred Edersheim and
concerning prophets. I would suggest that you consult Bill's tract
and see the difference between
his quotations and mine. When Bill quotes Alfred Edersheim he
conveniently leaves out some
very important statements. I believe when we observe those
statements we will understand why
he skipped them. He does the same thing in quoting Cunningham
Geikie, on Page 13, of his
tract. In both cases he omits what Edersheim and Geikie have to say
about the "sons of the
prophets". Observe the following statement taken from Prophecy and
History by Alfred
Edersheim P.121 - 123). "Thus viewed, the prophet is the medium of
supposed or real Divine
communication--from whatever Deity it be--and the 'weller-forth' is
also 'the spokesman.' It is in
this sense that, when Moses was sent to bear the Divine
communication to Pharaoh, Aaron was
promised to him as his Nabhi--his weller-forth, spokesman, or medium
of communication. This
may also help us to understand the meaning of an institution and of
a designation in the Old
Testament which is of the deepest interest: that of 'schools of the
prophets' and 'the sons of the
.....It is very obvious from reading the
above quotation that, according to Edersheim, the sons of the
prophets were not inspired. This is
the reason for the schools of the prophets. They, like Aaron,
sustained the same relationship to
the prophets that the prophets did to God. The prophet spoke what
God revealed and the son of
the prophet spoke what the prophet revealed.
.... Again Geikie said, "They lived in communities, ate in common,
went abroad--in companies, and
were so numerous, at least at a later time, that Ahab could assemble
400 at once; that 100 were
hidden in a cave by Obadiah; that 100 are mentioned in connection
with the community at
Jericho; and 100 more who, at the same period, lived at Gilgal."
(Hours With the Bible. Vol.3,
P.45,1888 ed.) Thus, according to Edersheim and Geikie the sons of
the prophets were not
inspired, but were called prophets. Moses was an inspired prophet
who received his message
direct from God, but Aaron was Moses' prophet in that he received
his message direct from
Moses rather than direct from God. Thus Aaron was Moses' prophet
rather than God's prophet.
His message came direct from Moses rather than direct from God.
However, he is spoken of as
God's prophet also in Num. 12. Thus, according to both Edersheim and
Geikie, one can be a
prophet without being inspired. This is most interesting in view of
some statements Bro.
Cavender made in his tract. Bro. Cavender said, " 'Prophesying' was
ALWAYS a spiritual gift,
done by inspired people, either men or women NEVER in the Bible is
common teaching". (Page 5). Yet the scholars he quotes disagree with
him. According to
Edersheim and Geikie when Aaron told the people what Moses gave him;
that which Moses had
received directly from God, Aaron was Moses' prophet and thus
prophesying. Also when the
"sons of the prophets" taught any thing they received from the
prophets they were prophesying.
According to their reasoning then I would be prophesying when I
teach that which the apostles
received directly from God.
.....ROBERT MILLIGAN ON PROPHETS
.....Thus according to Milligan, another scholar quoted by Bro.
Cavender, a person does not
have to be inspired to be a prophet. The interpreter of Moses was
called a prophet. Also poets
were called the prophets of the Muses. Now, if Aaron was a prophet
by interpreting what Moses
said, i.e. that which Moses received direct from God; then why
cannot I be a prophet by
interpreting what Paul said, i.e. that which Paul received directly
........W. E. VINE ON PROPHETS
When Bill quoted W. E. Vine, on the word "prophet" (Pg. 14), he also
conveniently left off the
part that does not suit his case. Vine also says the Cretan poet
Epimenides was a prophet. W.E.
Vine, Expositorv Dictionary of New Testament Words Vol.3, Pg. 222.
Again, I do not believe
Bill believes that Cretan poet was inspired and yet Paul calls him a
prophet. (Tit. 1:12).
......THAYER ON PROPHETS
When Bill quoted Thayer, on the word "prophet", on page 14 of his
tract, he conveniently left
off one definition of a prophet. I now quote what Bill skipped. "An
interpreter of oracles
(whether uttered by the gods or the mantels), or of other hidden
things. A foreteller, soothsayer,
seer." Thayer, Greek English Lexicon Pg. 552. I wonder if Bill
believes one has to be inspired to
interpret oracles uttered by the gods or to be a soothsayer?
.......GIRDLESTONE ON PROPHET
... Mr. Girdlestone says the original meaning of this word is
uncertain. He would also have us know that the messengers of false gods
were prophets, and they certainly were not inspired. And he would have
us know that Aaron was the prophet of Moses because he acted as the
mouthpiece of Moses. Aaron simply preached what Moses received by divine
inspiration. Today gospel preachers preach what Paul and Peter and
others received by divine inspiration.
........ADAM CLARKE ON 1 COR. 11
On Page 16, of Bill's tract, he said, "Thus in 1 Cor. 11:2-16, the
'prophesying' man and the
'prophesying' woman were inspired, Spirit-led people. EVERY
lexicographer and scholar so
translates these words, and every reliable, reputable scholar and
commentator so comments. NO
SCHOLAR ever makes the 'prophesying' of 1 Cor. 11:4-5 ordinary,
uninspired teaching. Yet this
is what the advocates of hat-wearing for sisters in Christ do." From
previous quotations from the
very scholars Bill quoted, in his tract, you will observe that these
scholars do not agree with him.
They believed that a man could be a prophet without always being
inspired. They believed you
could prophesy by interpreting the oracles of idols, and certainly
this would not require
inspiration. I would like for us to observe some statements Adam
Clarke made in his
commentary on I Cor. 11. Clarke said, "Praying or prophesying, Any
person who engages in
public acts in the worship of God, whether prayer, singing, or
exhortation: for we learn, from
the apostle himself that propheteuein to prophesy, signifies to
speak unto men to edification,
exhortation, and comfort, chap. 14:3. And this comprehends all that
we understand by
exhortation, or even preaching. Having his head covered -- with his
cap or turban on,
dishonoureth his head; because the head being covered was a sign of
subjection; and while he
was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be
considered as a representative
of Christ, and on this account his being veiled or covered would be
improper. This decision of
the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews;
for they would not suffer a
man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason:
'He should veil himself to
show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to
behold him."' (Clarke, Op.
cit., Pg. 250). 1 don't believe one can read Clarke's commentary on
1 Cor. 11 and get the idea that
he applies the instructions of Paul only to Inspired people. Surely
Bro. Cavender believes Clarke
is a reliable, reputable scholar because he quotes from him. Of
course he just quoted what he
wanted and ignored Clarke when Clarke disagreed with him.
>From Wendell Wiser's reply to Bill Cavendar's "The Women and Her
Covering" pgs. 8-12,
found on the web at:
OK, Don, a fair reading of the above noted authorities (including W.E.
Vine <g> who gives a use of the word in Titus 1:12 as an UNINSPIRED
PROPHET) on the words will suffice to show that "prophesying" (and its
forms: nouns, etc) is NOT LIMITED to inspired speech ONLY. I have no
problem including inspired and uninspired prophesying in I Corinthians
11:1-16, as there were BOTH inspired and uninspired folks there in that
church (context argument, Don). Don, why do you continue to do this in
light of what has been pointed out contrary to your position? It is not
unavoidable to conclude (and you do use the word "apparent" sometimes),
that "praying" and pray" in this text is miraculous ONLY prayer! Don,
why do you continue to teach this? Don continues to exclude members of
the church of God at Corinth (in the first century) as needing to obey
this instruction. Don, why do you continue to do this, as well? No
wonder my good brother Don Martin excludes us today and accuses me (i.e.
my position) as being guilty of promoting an anachronism (i.e. taking
something from the past given for a specific time only, and applying it
incorrectly today)! The uninspired folks ~prayed~ in the church of God
at Corinth along with the inspired folks and headship (and other
God-given reasons for the instruction) was to be demonstrated in the
manner Paul set forth in the text (which was probably in
VIOLATION/OPPOSITION to the "cultural practice" of BOTH the Jewish
Christians and the Greek Christians who made up that diverse
congregation)! Paul didn't teach conformance to "culture" herein;
rather, he gave us God's instruction on the matter.
Don notes QUESTION #4 and then he replied to question #4 (in his last
QUESTION #4: Don, since you state that the nouns and pronouns in verse
7 can have specific application AND general application, why can't you
allow the same thing for the definitions of "praying or prophesying" in
verses 4, 5?
Mark replies briefly:
I will continue to discuss this good Bible topic in other posts this
weekend with my brother Don Martin and the listers, Lord willing,
including my response to Don's reply to my question #4 <g>, before going
to Question #5.
My thanks continue to Don Martin for his continued willingness to study
this subject over which we disagree in the proper spirit. My thanks to
the readership for the indulgence in the volume of information provided.
In Christian love,
Mark J. Ward
The Religious Instructor
The Golden Isles church of Christ
(From MARS-List Digest 3857, February 1, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org]
Email the Editor at email@example.com
| CURRENT ISSUE | MAIN PAGE | BACK ISSUES | DISCUSSION PAGE |
| SPECIAL STUDIES | SERMON OUTLINES |