The Don Martin - Jeff Smelser - Mark J. Ward Discussion on

I Corinthians 14:34,35


Martin's 10th


The following is brother Don Martin's next in the exchange on the proper understanding and application today of I Corinthians 14:34,35.

Subject: Re: I Corinthians 14: 34, 35
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:21:07 -0700
From: "Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To: <mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to Mark Ward, Jeff Smelser, and the list (post one of two):

Mark has been busy but has now asked his question one. Before he asked his
question, though, he had a number of things to say. I shall briefly as
I can address Mark's welcomed post. Since I only have two posts left today,
I shall answer Mark's question one tomorrow, Lord willing.

Mark wrote:

Don wants me to shorten my posts.

Don comments:

Mark, I suppose you repeat yourself and often ask the same questions
thinking that I will finally answer them the way you want. I am sorry, but
I must answer them in harmony with my understanding of scripture. I would
like to see us move on after a question is asked, answered, and there is
discussion to additional and new territory. Perhaps I am too impatient.

Mark explains:

Two, sometimes such a mess is made by someone in advocating a particular
position that I understand to be incorrect, that it takes many more words
to address it and rebutt it than it did for the advocate of the incorrect
position to teach it in the first place.

Don comments:

If I were a sensitive fellow, I would think I am the object of the
immediately above. I do think that it is good that Mark, Jeff, and I are
mature enough that we do not "get mad" at each other.

Mark states:

PROPHETESSES: INCLUDED ~AND~ EXCLUDED IN I COR. 14:34,35???
Don teaches two ideas that seem to conflict, namely, that prophetesses ~ARE
NOT INCLUDED~ in the instruction in I Cor. 14:34,35 (note: I mentioned
BOTH verses, brother Don) AND that prophetesses, if they were to ask
questions in the assembly in a certain fashion ~ARE INCLUDED~ in the
instruction in I Cor. 14:34,35! Is this correct, brother Don? IF SO, please
unravel the spaghetti/conflict, don't just say you have been falsely accused
by others before, deal with harmonizing the two. Thanks.

Don replies:

Mark, I have explained this mystery to you many times. In view of these
particular women in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 being married, not knowing the
answers to their questions, but being told to ask their "uninspired
husbands" (I believe their husbands were the prophets just mentioned in the
context, the ones likely to know the answers), and the immediately preceding
and subsequent verses mentioning confusion and contumacy, I believe the
teaching of our study passage has specificity and not simple generality.
However, had a woman, any woman at Corinth (including a prophetess), been
doing what these women were evidently doing, they would be wrong and would
thus fit into the scope of the passage (vs. 33, 40). I do believe that
"keep silence" is specific and pertains to the action being presented and
understood. They were to be "without sound" in the circumstances addressed.
I believe, however, I Timothy 2: 8-12 is general and restricts the woman
(non-prophetess at Corinth) from doing anything in the assembly other than
"learning in silence." I say this with the before acknowledged
understanding that the woman is allowed to audibly sing in the assembly
and to confess Christ as the Son of God anterior to baptism (Eph. 5: 19;
Rom. 10: 1-10). Mark, I cannot be plainer or simpler, I am sorry.

Mark wrote:

SIMILARITIES & DIFFERENCES
I wrote concerning the assembly of the local church, the simultaneous
Bible class arrangement and the home on the same topic of women
being disruptive and insubordinate, brother Don. Three settings, all
different, but on the same topic of what women are allowed by
scripture to do in those settings. In fact, I was asking concerning the
"same activity" in those three settings. Maybe that helps? Hope so.
(NOTE: I agree that I Cor. 14: 34,35 regulates the assembly of the local
church, but in your answer to Jeff, YOU took us to I Tim. 2:11,12, which
I do NOT accept is an assembly ONLY regulatory passage.).

Don answers:

Mark, I apologize for apparently not understanding what you heretofore
asked. Yes, a woman would be out of place anytime and anywhere she is
insubordinate (cp. I Cor. 11: 3). I Corinthians 14 is pertaining to the
assembly (as you have agreed). I Timothy 2: 8-12 is also pertaining to the
assembly, no more no less than I Corinthians 14. I think you and I do have
a different understanding of anthenrein andros ("to exercise authority of
(over) a man," Marshall) in I Timothy 2: 12 (perhaps our next exchange, just
kidding). I am not sure what you mean by:

"YOU took us to I Tim. 2:11,12, which I do NOT accept is an assembly ONLY
regulatory passage." I believe that anthenrein andros precludes a woman
from assuming a position as the religious teacher in a mixed audience or
with men only. The position of teacher and leader (leads in prayer, vs. 8)
is limited to the male. I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 involves insubordination
of headship ("under obedience"), I believe there is a difference.

Mark brings back up the following:

Don hasn't answered the following, or I missed it:
For Don to argue that consistency would demand that the position I hold
would deem the prophetess "inferior"...is like unto Don's position on
UNinspired women...are they inferior OR, is there something amiss in
Don's argument <g>? The answer lies in the fact that when God makes
a rule to forbid all women from speaking in a particular setting, namely
the church assembled into one place...that such is NOT necessarily
demeaning, or makes them "inferior".

Don inserts:

As I have said, to have included in the women to whom Paul said, "And if
they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home..." being the
Holy Spirit led prophetesses and to take the position that the "husbands"
were "uninspired, is to deprecate and belittle the work, role, and nature of
the miraculously gifted prophetess. Mark simply does not want to accept
the dialectic consequences of his position. Mark continues to take such
positions, I believe, in view of his efforts to bind the head covering on
all women, not appreciating the unique and extraordinary prophetess of the
Bible, to whom the head covering was bound and enjoined (I Cor. 11: 4-16).
Mark cannot imagine the prophetess doing the same thing, in the same way,
and circumstances as the prophet; hence, he believes I Corinthians 14: 34,
35 is telling the prophetess to "keep silence in the churches."

Please see post two.

(from MARS-List Digest 4053, March 31, 2003)


Subject: Re: I Corinthians 14: 34, 35
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:21:59 -0700
From: "Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To: <mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>



Don Martin to Mark Ward, Jeff Smelser, and the list (post two of two):

Mark again wrote:

I Timothy 2:1-12's context is such that the applicability of the instruction
therein IS NOT LIMITED to assembly only activity. Don misses this and did
not touch it (unless I missed it) in his last. Such being the case, I bring
up other settings (that would STILL be under the instruction of I Tim. 2),
like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement (even if Don thinks
I Tim. 2 is assembly only instruction, please correct me if I misunderstand
you, brother Don). Error does NOT have to be consistent. That is a
fact <g>. Don, Jeff and I are trying hard to always be consistent, as well
we should. We all highly respect the scriptures and each other. We
KNOW that truth is in harmony, not conflict, with truth. Don shouldn't argue
that prophetesses are NOT included in the instruction (specifically) and
then argue they ARE included in the instruction GENERICALLY. Don't
forget to straighten out that spaghetti, brother Don. NOTE: If they are
INCLUDED at all in the instruction, then the prohibition applies
to them...If not, why not?

Don comments:

Mark, you speak of consistency but you ignore the context of a verse. I
Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2: 8-12 are pertaining to the assembly. Are
there principles that have universal application? Yes, the woman is not to
be without headship subjugation in or without the assembly (I Cor. 14: 34,
35, cp. I Cor. 11: 3). It would be wrong for a woman today to teach any
religious gathering, assuming the posture of the teacher, even though this
gathering may not be what we call the assembly. However, I do not believe
I Timothy 2: 12 is precluding a woman teaching mathematics at a local
college with some of the students or all being male. Perhaps we also differ
regarding this matter.

Mark asked:

Don, did you argue that the women to whom the passage in I Cor. 14:34,35
applies had to meet two criteria? (1. Be a non-prophetess wife of a prophet
and, 2. Ask a question in an insubordinate, disorderly way AND/OR exercise
dominion over men by speaking...since you exclude prophetesses from this
text so you can have them doing so in the assembly) I think you argued as
much, but don't really believe that in all applications you would make using
that scripture reference.

Don answers:

Mark, I believe that a woman, any woman today who asks disruptive questions
and violates headship principles as the women of our text were doing is
wrong, based on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. I do believe, though, that these
women were the prophets wives. My objection is using this passage in such a
way as to contradict I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and the work of the prophetess
in general and to simply attempt to keep women in the assembly today
"without sound." I Timothy 2: 11 presents the woman in the assembly as
"learning in silence" without any specificity. Mark, you are misusing I
Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

My friend Mark probes and accuses:

WHAT SUBJECTS & IN WHAT SETTINGS DOES DON
BELIEVE CERTAIN WOMEN CAN TEACH OVER MEN? I believe
Don (correct me if I am wrong) believes that a woman CAN teach a
man the Bible??? in an authoritative manner (over him) "at home" and
lead/teach a class (like a math class at high school or college) of ALL
MEN, with God's blessings. Is that correct? Also, I don't believe you
believe that a woman could teach a Bible class (in the simultaneous
Bible class arrangement at church services) of ALL MEN on religious
material. Is that correct? And, I am not sure what you believe about a
woman teaching a Home Bible Study class of ALL MEN "at home". What
say ye?

Don answers:

Mark, I have dealt with the immediately above many times. I do not believe
it is necessarily wrong for a woman to teach a college class secular
subjects. It would be wrong, however, for a woman to assume the position of
teacher in a home Bible class involving men, as explained above. While such
is not the assembly of I Timothy 2, it is a religious assembly. I trust
this will not be confusing.

Mark repeats himself:

Think about the converse of what you are saying: IF, as your position seems
to be advocating: the "prophets' wives" (uninspired ladies, the one's
needing the knowledge, as tho the prophetesses don't??? <g>) cannot
ask a question in the assembly, but the prophetesses CAN? You can't
have it both ways...prophetesses really can't ask a question, or speak
either in the assembly of the church, good brother, for the BIBLE teaches:
"for it is a shame for women to speak in church".

Don again answers:

Mark, the explanatory expression, "for it is a shame for women to speak in
church" has a context.

After all I have repeatedly and patiently said, Mark still writes:

Mark here:
We have continually asked Don for Bible support of his understanding of
prophetesses teaching over men. We wait patiently for the scriptural proof
of such. Where is the passage? It's NOT in I Cor. 11, and Don has NOT
proved such from his sillygism. (Mark, this statement is not characteristic
of you. I trust you will reflect on it.)

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 4053, March 31, 2003)

Subject: Re: I Corinthians 14: 34, 35
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:08:03 -0700
From: "Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To: <mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to Mark Ward, Jeff Smelser, and the list:

Mark has presented the following good question and I shall attempt to
briefly answer it.

QUESTION ONE:
Brother Don (and Jeff, if you like), are the following activities WRONG?

IF NO, please give a scripture if you can. Please note that the "setting"
changes in G-K, but I have a particular reason for asking those questions.
Thanks. ALSO, G-K may require TWO answers, if you make a distinction
between "at home" and "the simultaneous Bible class arrangement" with
regards to "away from the assembly of the local church" to the degree
that you have different answers in that regard. THANKS <G>.

NOTE: IF your answer is YES that it is wrong, PLEASE BE SURE TO IDENTIFY
whether one or both (or a different) passage(s) applies: namely, the
teachings of I Cor. 14:34,35, (those verses specifically, now) and
I Tim. 2:11,12 to the situations/scenarios below:

A. A PROPHETESS MARRIED TO A PROPHET, innocent in heart, raising her hand,
waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible
class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local
church?
B. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED TO A SAINT WHO IS
UNINSPIRED, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon
(thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and
asking a question in the assembly of the local church?
C. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED TO AN ALIEN, innocent
in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive
like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement), and asking a question in
the assembly of the local church?
D. An PROPHET'S WIFE WHO IS UNINSPIRED, innocent in heart, raising her hand,
waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible
class arrangement) and asking a question in the assembly of the local
church?
(NOTE: Don please understand why I am asking this...when you already have
indicated that you believe that the women who are not to ask question ~are
these women~...its because I THINK you are contending that they are wrong
ONLY BECAUSE they are being disorderly and/or insubordinate in the WAY
in which they are asking/speaking (your assumption on the I Cor. 14:34,35
text). Is that the key that unlocks your unusual position on this set of
verses?)
E. An UNMARRIED UNINSPIRED WOMAN (virgin, non-virgin or widow), innocent in
heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like
the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the
assembly of the local church?
F. An UNMARRIED INSPIRED WOMAN (virgin, non-virgin or widow), innocent in
heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like
the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the
assembly of the local church?
G. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking
him a question "at home"?
H. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER MAN
(other than her husband, like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures
whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local
church?
I. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking
ANOTHER WOMAN (like a woman who had great knowledge of the scriptures,
whether she had the gift of knowledge or no inspiration at all) a question
away from the assembly of the local church?
J. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN asking ANOTHER
MAN (other than her husband, like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures
whether inspired or not) a question away from the assembly of the local
church?
K. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS NOT MARRIED ASKING A MAN (like a man more
knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away
from the assembly of the local church?

So, for AN EXAMPLE ONLY (NOT necessarily MY position <G>):
Question One A, above, might be answered:

1A. YES such would be wrong. But I would use I Tim. 2:11,12 and WOULD NOT
USE I Cor. 14:34,35 (those 2 verses specifically) since I Cor. 14:34,35
would ONLY deal with prophetesses IF they were disruptive and the question
indicates such was NOT the case.

Don here:

I do not mind Mark's question. However, I find it amusing that Mark has
commented on my compound questions. I shall attempt to copy and
paste and insert a brief answer and comment.

A. A PROPHETESS MARRIED TO A PROPHET, innocent in heart, raising her hand,
waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible
class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local
church?

Answer: Such a question reflects Mark's continued misunderstanding of the
Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or included
in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

B. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED
TO A SAINT WHO IS UNINSPIRED, innocent in heart, raising her hand,
waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible
class arrangement), and asking a question in the assembly of the local
church?

Answer: Ibid.

C. A PROPHETESS NOT MARRIED TO A PROPHET, BUT MARRIED
TO AN ALIEN, innocent in heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called
upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible class arrangement),
and asking a question in the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Ibid.

D. An PROPHET'S WIFE WHO IS UNINSPIRED, innocent in heart, raising her hand,
waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like the simultaneous Bible
class arrangement) and asking a question in the assembly of the local
church?

Answer: I do not believe I Corinthians 14: 33-40 is addressing this event,
as such (such assumes a question could have been asked in the
assembly in a way that was not disruptive). As I believe there were and are
better ways of dealing with questions, I would not encourage such
a practice today, even as you have qualified it.

E. An UNMARRIED UNINSPIRED WOMAN (virgin, non-virgin or widow), innocent in
heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like
the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the
assembly of the local church?

Answer: As I believe there are better ways of dealing with questions, I
would not encourage such a practice, even as you have qualified it.

F. An UNMARRIED INSPIRED WOMAN (virgin, non-virgin or widow), innocent in
heart, raising her hand, waiting to be called upon (thus non-disruptive like
the simultaneous Bible class arrangement) and asking a question in the
assembly of the local church?

Answer: Such a question reflects Mark's continued misunderstanding of the
Bible prophetess.

G. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN
asking him a question "at home"?

Answer: Such a question reflects Mark's continued misunderstanding
of the Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or
included in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

H. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN
asking ANOTHER MAN (other than her husband, like a man more
knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away
from the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Such a question reflects Mark's continued misunderstanding of the
Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or included
in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

I. A PROPHETESS WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED MAN
asking ANOTHER WOMAN (like a woman who had great knowledge of the
scriptures, whether she had the gift of knowledge or no inspiration at all)
a question away from the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Such a question reflects Mark's continued misunderstanding of the
Bible prophetess. No, I do not believe such is in Paul's mind or included
in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.

J. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS MARRIED TO AN UNINSPIRED
MAN asking ANOTHER MAN (other than her husband, like a man more
knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not) a question away
from the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Mark, I do not understand any relevance between this question and I
Corinthians 14: 34, 35. No scripture condemns such.

K. AN UNINSPIRED WOMAN WHO IS NOT MARRIED ASKING A MAN
(like a man more knowledgeable in the scriptures whether inspired or not)
a question away from the assembly of the local church?

Answer: Mark, I do not understand any relevance between this question and I
Corinthians 14: 34, 35. No scripture condemns such.

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 4054, April 1, 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 brethren on the issue of whether the women in the "b" part of verse 35 of I Corinthians 14:34,35 is "all women", including women today, or whether those women were only the "prophets' wives". 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


| CURRENT ISSUE | MAIN PAGE | BACK ISSUES | DISCUSSION PAGE |

| SPECIAL STUDIES | SERMON OUTLINES |