The Don Martin - Jeff Smelser - Mark J. Ward Discussion on
I Corinthians 14:34,35
The following is brother Jeff Smelser's next in the exchange on the true meaning and application of I Corinthians 14:34,35 today.
Subject: Re: I Corinthians 14: 34, 35
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:48:50 -0400
From: "Jeff Smelser" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Don Martin" <email@example.com>
Jeff Smelser to Don Martin, Mark Ward, and the list,
Don, I understand you are bringing your part in this discussion to an end.
The timing is good for me inasmuch as I will be travelling the next two
weeks - I leave for the UK Saturday and then begin a meeting in Pekin, IN
However, before bringing my part to a conclusion I need to respond to a
couple of statements you made in your last post wherein you erroneously
characterized my views on points not addressed in my posts.
First, you wrote:
> However, they
> both have admitted to at least one exception: The female audibly singing in
> the assembly (Eph. 5: 19). They have maintain that I have perverted the
> passage when I make the prophetess the exception, but they make singing the
> exception. They justify this (I concur) on the basis of Ephesians 5: 19
> and I justify the prophetess being an exception based on I Corinthians 11:
I don't think that I discussed "singing" at any time in this discussion. I
do ~not~ regard singing as "the exception" to 1 Cor. 14:33bff.
Congregational singing wherein one voice is joined with a chorus of others
is simply not addressed in a context where the topic is speaking one at a
time, that is, in such a fashion as to have the floor. Singing is not an
exception. It simply isn't the kind of thing that is being discussed. And if
I were to try to make singing an exception, I certainly would ~not~ do so
based on Ephesians 5:19. But in fact, I don't see the need to squeeze any
exceptions into 1 Cor. 14:33bff. I take the passage to mean what it says,
taking care to make it mean nothing more than what it says. If you wish to
see a more thorough development of my thoughts on the subject, see my
Second, you wrote:
> (I believe that Mark and Jeff basically agree regarding the head
> covering being applicable today and that 14: 34, 35 precluded the
> prophetesses from speaking in the assembly).
Well, at least this time you introduced your characterization with the more
tentative, "I believe..." But if by "the head covering," you have in mind
a garment of some sort, then you are mistaken about my view on this point
as well. In fact, Mark and I do agree that whatever covering Paul describes
in 1 Cor. 11 is required today. However, I am not convinced that Mark is
correct in supposing that covering is a garment of some sort.
Thanks for the discussion to both Don and Mark, and to the list owners for
providing this forum.
For the record (and thanks to Mark for keeping a record),
(from MARS-List Digest 4071, April 8, 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 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 firstname.lastname@example.org]
Email the Editor at email@example.com
| CURRENT ISSUE | MAIN PAGE | BACK ISSUES | DISCUSSION PAGE |
| SPECIAL STUDIES | SERMON OUTLINES |