Don Martin - Jeff Smelser - Mark J. Ward Discussion on I Corinthians 14:34,35

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

I Corinthians 14:34,35

Ward's 2nd

The following is brother Mark J. Ward's next in the exchange on the proper meaning and application of I Corinthians 14:34,35 for folks today.

Subject: Re: I Corinthians 14:34,35
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:53:59 -0500
From: "Mark J. Ward" <markjward@darientel.net>
To: mars-list@mtsu.edu, dmartin5@concentric.net, jeffsmelser@ntgreek.net, markjward@darientel.net

Mark J. Ward here to brethren Don Martin and Jeff Smelser
(and the list):

(post one of three)

I certainly appreciate the tone and quality of the discussion thus far. The attitudes displayed by both brothers Don and Jeff are, in my estimation, what they should always be in Bible study. In fact, such goes a long way to PROMOTE further studies, rather than inhibit or discourage them due to improper behavior on the part of those involved (*tho' we would still have an obligation to contend for what we believe if those we disagreed with were ugly, it just would be far more unpleasant to discuss with them <g>). I didn't expect anything less from these two brethren since I have a great degree of confidence in and admiration for them. Let us continue, with all carefulness of mind, to examine I Corinthians 14:34,35 and determine the proper application and meaning of the text for us today. Again, I appreciate so much brothers Don and Jeff being willing to study in this manner. I hope the listers benefit like I believe we all will from these efforts. I really like situations wherein I believe God is happy and the devil hates what's going on. I believe this is one such situation <G>.

Don wrote:
Some present I Corinthians 14:34, 35 in a way that manifestly contradicts what Paul taught in I Corinthians 11: 4-16 regarding the prophetesses and how they were to "pray or prophesy."

Mark here:
Since Don believes that women prophetesses taught over men in the assembly of the local church (per his understanding of I Cor. 11 and the role of prophetesses in the New Testament <g>) and since I Cor 14 teaches some, or all women, are to be silent in the church, Don will have a contradiction in his present understanding and the manner in which he teaches on these two passages IF it is determined that such women includes "the prophetesses" in instruction (for example): "…for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Cor. 14:35b). At present, there is no contradiction in Don's position on both passages, as ~he~ explains them, for his position has a "special class of women called prophetesses ONLY" (along with their role to teach over men by exception of God's law of subjection) in his view on I Cor. 11 and a "special class of women called prophets' wives ONLY" in his view of I Cor. 14:34,35. IF either position he holds be shown to be wrong, down goes his theory that prophetesses preached in the assembly of churches of Christ over men! (Note: This is NOT the same as believing that prophetesses taught in some "public" settings or even edified the church<G>). Please read on.

Don wrote:
One view is that after telling the prophetesses how to do what they were doing in public places in chapter eleven, Paul now decides to change his teaching and tell the prophetesses to be silent in the assembly.

Mark here:
Does Don LITERALLY EQUATE "public places" above to "in the assembly" in his question above? OR, is "public places" by definition a phrase including settings LARGER & OTHER THAN "in the assembly" of the local church? Such is important to know in such a Bible study as this. Equivocation is something we don't want to engage in, consciously or unconsciously! If such is ~Don's view of my position~, for example, wherein do "private settings" get fair billing? <g> (i.e. public ~and private~ settings???)

I don't believe that the "immediately above view" written by Don is the view of any of the three in ~this~ discussion. We AGREE such is an incorrect understanding, I think. Let us note here, however, that one can find scholars, who put forth this view. This should be a warning that we can find someone to agree with us on just about any issue that we would like to. This is not enough to establish truth (i.e. finding some scholar, or non-scholar for that matter who decides to put something into print <g>, who agrees with our position on a topic); but, by rightly dividing God's Word we properly discern truth.

Don's position on I Corinthians 11, in my estimation, starts off with several assumptions and from those assumptions leaps to other conclusions that are not based on solid footing, but rather on his original (incorrect) assumptive reasons that were faulty in the first place. The reader is asked to return to the listing of over 15 assumptions I have listed previously that Don asks us to believe to join hands with him that are not demanded by the inspired record ~on that subject~!

Don continued:
Could it be that I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 are addressing entirely different people and circumstances? We shall attempt by careful exegesis to ascertain exactly what Paul is and is not teaching when he penned I Corinthians 14: 34, 35."

Mark here:
Could it be that I Corinthians 11 and I Corinthians 14 are BOTH addressing the same women (directly), ALL WOMEN, at Corinth who worshipped and worked among each other on a regular basis at the same congregation <g>? In one chapter, instruction was given concerning whenever and wherever (public OR private settings) wherein they would be allowed to, in keeping with their roles, "pray or prophesy" and in another chapter, wherein they would be ~in the church~ setting (i.e. ~in the assembly~ setting)??? YES, Mark answers <g>. But brother Don believes differently. Don believes in a SPECIAL CLASS of WOMEN in I Corinthians 11:1-16; "PROPHETESSES ONLY", when God's Word uses the terminology "every woman" (I Cor. 11:5)! Thus, Don has freely admitted the non-prophetesses and non-prophets can pray in the assembly (for an example) uncovered/covered with God's blessings! Don also believes and restricts the instruction of I Corinthians 14:34,35 in part to another SPECIAL CLASS of WOMEN (IF I understand his position properly, which will bear out in the course of this particular study): "THE PROPHETS' WIVES ONLY", when God's Word uses the terminology "for it is a shame for WOMEN to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14:35b). This, I contend, is ALSO based on false assumptions. THEN, Don concludes that the passages don't have a bearing on each other in the respect that two different classes of women are discussed! We believe Don gravely errs in this understanding and application of the passage. Please read on to see if such is the case or not. Be fully persuaded in your own minds.

It should be noted that the issue of "women teachers" was the beginning point for my discussion on these two texts with brother Don. I do believe very strongly that women could prophesy IN SOME PUBLIC SETTINGS AND IN SOME PRIVATE SETTINGS and EVEN TEACH MEN in so doing (thereby negating the impression some may get from Don's writings, brother Don!!!). IT IS TRUE, however, that I do NOT believe that prophetesses were ever allowed by God to exercise dominion over men in their prophesying, whether in public OR private settings (I Tim. 2:11,12). I also do not believe that prophetesses were allowed to speak in the church (when the whole church be come together into one place per I Cor. 14:34,35). That is an accurate representation of what I believe. Let's continue to be very careful in our writings wherein we make broad statements that are not correct about the others' position, please. Thanks. Hope that helps a bit <g>.

Don continues to assert things that are not demanded by scripture since it is neither taught specifically in the text, nor from unavoidable conclusions that passages ~would have us HAVE TO reach~. Don gets an "inference", formulates an opinion, rejects other possibilities that we have shown ~could very well be/have been the case~…and then on the false starting premise, draws false conclusions on which he bases his present conviction on the subject matter in question. I do not believe that Don has ever proven one of his beginning assumptive premises: namely, that inspired prophetesses were doing EXACTLY the same thing in EXACTLY the same circumstances as the inspired prophets were doing! But he sure believes that was the case, doesn't he? In fact, since Don advocates such, Don never proved that "pray" and "praying" is LEADING ONLY, did he? It would be the true burden of proof to be Don's to prove that "praying" is ONLY REFERRING TO THE LEADER of the prayer. Another assumption in his reasoning. Please note that Don is the one who brought up I Cor. 11 (see above) in contrast/comparison to I Cor. 14. Thus the necessity to "follow" and discuss that aspect herein. <G>

Don wrote:
Wherein lies the chief difference? There is a marked difference between Mark and Jeff's understanding of what precipitated the prohibition to "keep silence" and my understanding. As a consequence, Mark and Jeff (they seem to be in agreement) and I differently apply "keep silence."

Mark here:
IF we are NOT told in the inspired record "~what precipitated~ the prohibition" (specifically or by unavoidable conclusion), such is obviously not essential/relevant in order to properly follow the prohibition! IF we ARE told "~what precipitated~ the prohibition" in the inspired record, such ~still might not be necessary~ for the prohibition to apply in a different situation, that was not ~identical to~ the one that precipitated the prohibition in the first place! ~Proper spiritual discernment~ along this line is essential. ~Conjecture~ only leads to problems in this regard. This is key in any detailed study of a Bible subject matter being applied today. The Holy Spirit uses an economy of words in our inspired canon that is divine in wisdom and applicational intent for use by multiple generations/societies of time! Let's not forget that. I believe all three involved in this particular discussion hold dearly to this truth, we just don't always apply it the same in our interpretation and application of various matters of disagreement.

(con't in next 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

(from MARS-List Digest 4024, March 22, 2003)

Subject: Re: I Corinthians 14:34,35
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:55:05 -0500
From: "Mark J. Ward" <markjward@darientel.net>
To: mars-list@mtsu.edu, dmartin5@concentric.net, jeffsmelser@ntgreek.net, markjward@darientel.net

Mark J. Ward here to Don Martin, Jeff Smelser and the listers:

(post two of three)

We continue our good study examining previously posted material.

Don has the "prophets wives ONLY" being the special class in I Cor. 14 who have to keep silent and I believe his position ALLOWS for "virgins, non-virgins, women married to non-prophets (whether alien or saint) and widows" TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH! Is that right Don? Now, Don's position (from I Corinthians 11) ONLY ALLOWS the inspired prophetesses WHILE LEADING the men ~to exercise dominion over men~ (so he has only that class doing what God said not do by teaching over men), but his I Corinthians 14 passage HAS ONLY THE PROPHETS' WIVES having to be silent in the assembly of the local church! Now, to be fair, Don will not have anyone (man or woman) causing a disturbance in such a way as for things not to be done decently and orderly (right Don? I never want to misunderstand or misrepresent another's position, so please correct me if I get a part of your position incorrect. Thanks). But "ladies other than prophets' wives" CAN ASK A QUESTION in the church (then and now), according to Don's position, right Don?

I also wonder if Don's present position on the "prophets' wives ONLY" stance he takes on I Cor. 14:34,35 would ALLOW THEM to speak in the church so long as they were not asking a question of a prophet??? In other words, could a prophet's wife answer a question asked of her IN THE CHURCH about the sick? Could she ask what "Psalm Number" had been given by the "song leader" <g> in the assembly of the church if she didn't hear it before singing began, etc. We will see as we get into the questions, just how restricted Don even believes his special class of "prophets' wives" were "to keep silent" as we continue this good Bible study.

Don wrote:
I, therefore, submit that what these women were doing was asking questions (the specific speaking) in the assembly of their husbands in such a way that both precipitated confusion and also resulted in lack of subjection to their husbands. These "women" were not all the women at Corinth, but they were married women. It is also implied that their husbands of whom they were to inquire at home and not in the assembly were in a position to provide the answers to their questions. Moreover, it is highly likely that their husbands were the prophets concerning whom the immediately preceding verses pertain. Hence, these women were to remain silent or without sound (as opposed to speech) IN THE MATTER contextually being discussed, confusion and lack of submission to their husbands. As to other regulating teaching that is broader in its scope, we must look to such texts as I Timothy 2: 12-15.

Mark here:
Another supposition, or made-up scenario, by our good brother Don. Don didn't give us ~a passage that taught such was really taking place in the manner he guesses it was~ at Corinth, did he? What we ~do have~ in the inspired record is what God would determine to give us, knowing that we have all things that pertain to life and godliness in our canon. We don't have to guess, assume and raise conjecture arguments to support unwarranted positions, when we can derive our position direct from the text, without adding a mixture of assumption into the recipe! Such assumptive thoughts, when made into a formulated belief, are the incorrect foundation for more assertions and leaps in brother Don's argumentation and final conclusions on these texts. PLEASE NOTE: There is a distinct difference in raising various scenarios ~that may have been the case~ in a Biblical situation to ascertain if there is but ONE unavoidable situation demanded from a text's instruction… and in choosing one (to the exclusion) of several scenarios that may have been the case (in part or in whole) and guessing about the matter and then running to form a "conviction" based on that guesswork! This, I believe, is near the base, if not right at the root of brother Don's false tree (i.e. his incorrect understanding of the passage), in my estimation. I say these things with all love, and yet I must be direct. Why do I say so on this particular study? Because, women are not to speak in the church because the BIBLE says, "…for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14:35b). This would include ALL WOMEN, not just the ladies that are in Don's ~madeup scenario and special class~.

Don reflects:
As I have said, I view the circumstance of I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 to involve totally different subjects and activities that are unrelated. Therefore, I do not believe there is any correlation between the two texts.

Mark here:
I sure hope the brethren at Corinth didn't think the way brother Don is advocating. Paul says "every woman" in chapter 11 and the women are supposed to understand "prophetesses only". Paul says "pray" in chapter 11 and the men and women are to understand "leading prayer only that is miraculous only". Paul says "every man" in chapter 11 and the brethren are to properly understand, according to brother Don's teaching, that such really means "every prophet only". The verse in 35b reads, "…for it is a shame for women to speak in church." and the brethren are to understand this is ONLY prophets' wives asking questions that can be clarified at home by their husbands who are prophets and will have the answer EXCLUSIVELY???

I see the "its not me, he's talking about somebody else" syndrome in the secular workplace sometimes. I know that it ALSO permeates our spiritual settings, like in the local church, for example! <g> This precludes folks from making the proper application to us today, for example, in both these chapters…11 & 14. I know we don't have spiritual gifts today, but we ALL agree that instruction in I Cor. 11 AND 14 apply today; we just disagree (presently) on what part(s) apply today and what part(s) don't apply today. <g> Thus, the need for continuation of study and testing of positions being held and advocated by each other.

Don's present understanding of both texts, I Corinthians 11 & 14 show how EXCLUSIVE Don's approach is, as opposed to INCLUSIVE. Consider the fact that this is part of God's Will for (1) all the saints at Corinth, (2) all the brethren in the first century, and (3) all brethren since that time, INLCUDING US!!! Don is very capable on many Bible subjects. I just believe he errs wherein we show his assumptiveness and "special class" approach to these texts in particular. Please read on.

Don wrote:
"Keep silence" is addressing the circumstances of the text: asking questions of their husbands in the assembly, probably the prophets just discussed, in such a way as to promote confusion and disorder (vs. 33, 40). Hence, rather than do this, they were to remain without sound (sigao), this absence of speech, however, was only in this regard, they were to sing, for instance (Eph. 5: 19).

Mark here:
Don doesn't stop at what the text says. Notice how our good brother Don runs with ~a particular possibility~ that he believes ~was the case!~ Such is tragic, in trying to reach agreement on God's truth. Could a prophet's wife, in a manner NOT creating confusion and disorder, ask a question of a prophet IN THE CHURCH? Just how "necessary" is {this} part/link in the instruction that Don is attempting to make (to "avoid confusion and disorder" being linked specifically to the silence of the prophets' wives/women in the text not speaking) to the LIMITATIONS of the prohibition??? Dear brother Don and readers, I am NOT trying to be harsh with my good brother and friend Don, but must point out mistakes I see in his incorrect belief. Thanks.

Don wrote:
As I have heretofore made plain, I do not accept the restricted, non-public role some assign to the prophetess of the Bible. I wrote in my exchange with Mark:

Then Don goes on to note passages in the Bible about prophetesses..then mentioned Anna…then quotes from Luke 2…Then Don says he has found some scholars and other learned men (all uninspired as we are) who agree with him that prophetesses were to teach over men with God's approval. Some even assert, in agreement with Don <g>, that they taught in the assembly of the local church. So what? What does the text really say and mean? That is what we are after!

We continue with "Anna" and Don's view in particular concerning prophetesses in the next post.

(see post three)

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 4024, March 22, 2003)

Subject: Re: I Corinthians 14:34,35
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:56:32 -0500
From: "Mark J. Ward" <markjward@darientel.net>
To: mars-list@mtsu.edu, dmartin5@concentric.net, jeffsmelser@ntgreek.net, markjward@darientel.net

Mark J. Ward to Don Martin, Jeff Smelser and the listers:

(post three of three)

Don has noted Anna on numerous occasions. Let us continue looking at Don's position relative to our study and at an item brought up by brother Jeff in his last post on this good study.

Then Don wrote:
Again, please consider my syllogism:

(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.

Prophesy was used publicly to teach both men and women. Again, these prophetesses were the exception of I Timothy 2: 12."

Mark here:
Don uses an OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETESS, Anna, to try to "prove" that: New Testament prophetesses COULD & DID, with God's approval, get up in the local church and PROPHESY OVER MEN in the audience! As we said before, a Sabbatarian would have a field day with such reasoning from Scripture.

As to the syllogism above, proving that women ~edified the church~ is one thing. Proving that prophetesses ~edified IN THE CHURCH OVER MEN~ is quite another thing! Don fails in this regard. But, he asks us to accept such and join hands with him and teach such. Too many unproven assumptions and leaps leading to conclusions that are not demanded from the passages we are studying. Please re-consider and re-evaluate your position as we study and as you digest the arguments presented herein (as time permits). I will promise to do the same good brother!

Previously, concerning this very syllogism, I asked clarification of brother Don, "Mark here: Don, I want to know in premise #1 above what you mean by "edify the church". Edify IN THE CHURCH can be DIFFERENT than EDIFY THE CHURCH: that is, a woman can edify the church without being IN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH. I think you are contending that ~women with spiritual gifts~ are included in the passages that might be "assembly only" instruction in I Cor. 14 concerning prophecy ~to the church~ (not merely: EDIFY THE CHURCH)..is that correct?" (from Mars-List Digest 3904, Feb 15, 2003) To which Don replied in his next post, "Don answers: I mean by "to edify the church with their gift" the same thing that Paul meant (I Cor. 14:3, 5, 12, 23, 24, 26-31). Mark, again, you are engaging in word gymnastics and games." (from MARS-List Digest 3915, Feb 18, 2003). Can I help by re-wording slightly, but for emphasis the previous?

REWORD TO HELP
Mark here: Don, I want to know in premise #1 above what you mean by "edify the church". Edify IN THE CHURCH can be DIFFERENT than EDIFY THE CHURCH BY TEACHING OVER MEN: that is, a woman can edify the church without being IN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH PREACHING OVER THE MEN IN THAT AUDIENCE.

No word games at all, dear Don, Jeff and other listers! Just like "seed vs. seeds" and "plural of class vs. plural in number" and "definite article present in context and absence of definite article in context"…there IS a difference in the MEANING and APPLICATION of "edify the church" and "edify IN THE CHURCH", Don's accusations regarding "word gymnastics" to the contrary <g>! I love my brother Don and appreciate him very much, but we continue to contend earnestly for what we both sincerely believe to be God's Truth in theses matters, along with our good brother Jeff Smelser (who writes very well, by the way).

Concerning one thing brother Jeff wrote concerning "the theme" of chapter 14:
"(2) You see the theme as avoiding confusion; I see the theme as using the gifts in a way that results in understanding. That may seem like two sides of the same coin, but I think there is a real difference there that may in part account for our difference in understanding vss. 34-35. And if I'm right about the theme, then your interpretation of verses 34-35 makes them as much an aside as does mine."

Mark here:
With great appreciation for Jeff's studied approach (like Don's) to various subject matter, including the present topic, I ask. Does properly understanding ~just what~ would be "the theme" of chapter 14 (whether "understanding" or "avoiding confusion") preclude one from properly being able to understand that "…it is a shame for women to speak in the church." in this particular case, to mean and include ~all women~, and not ~just prophets' wives~?

I believe it MAY help brother Don, and such is great, IF he be wrong on this (to be fair). It's like unto the matter of what is the "theme" of I Corinthians 11??? Headship? Coverings? Subjection? Distinctions in Men and Women? Customs? <big G here> If the "theme" is ~not~ given in the text specifically, OR is ~not~ able to be ascertained by unavoidable conclusion demanded from the texts, then such is not necessary unto proper interpretation/application of the passage…agree? Hope so <g>. Just as I don't have to know ~the reason behind even a reason~, like "because of the angels" in order to understand an instruction is given to be obeyed, we don't have to know the mind of Paul or God in order to know that "women are to keep silent in the church". Now, that does NOT mean that we aren't sometimes given God's reason or theme (stated, or really unavoidably concluded).

Don continues:
Someone asks, "Where do I read that the prophets and the prophetesses were doing the same thing and in the same circumstance?" The answer is found in the reason the covering is enjoined on the prophetesses. The very reason for the covering was the circumstance that these prophets and prophetesses were "praying or prophesying" and there needed to be some visible sign of authority or headship recognition on these inspired women to let others know that they respected headship while they were doing the same thing and in the same circumstance. Prophetesses were not given the miraculous gift of prophesy to only teach women and children!

Mark here:
Don uses, in my estimation, circular reasoning above and elsewhere in his position on I Cor. 11. We will formulate a careful paragraph or two on such and post later. Don has assumed that prophets and prophetesses were competing, or that such a problem "might occur", if I recall correctly. We are making slight progress <G>.

Who is contending that prophetesses couldn't teach men? Don! Please read carefully: the Bible teaches that women, including prophetesses taught men with God's approval. BUT, NOT OVER MEN nor in the assembly of the local church! (I Cor. 14:34,35; 2 Tim. 2:11,12; Acts 18:26).

Don, since ALL WOMEN were to be "subject" and ~show such~ at times of praying, why don't you believe that ALL WOMEN would want to wear a sign on their heads indicating such (then and now)??? Don, ALL WOMEN were to be in subjection "as also saith the law", why don't you believe that ALL WOMEN would need to be silent in the church?

Don wrote:
Suffice me to say that there is no contradiction between I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. They are really unrelated texts as they involve different subjects (people) and circumstances. I encourage you to respectfully consider Mark and Jeff's comments.

Mark here:
I don't have a contradiction (either) between I Cor. 11 and I Cor. 14 in the positions I hold on those verses. But if Don takes HIS belief about prophetesses in I Cor. 11 and prophets' wives in I Cor. 14 and applies it to MY understanding (in part) he will come up with a perceived contradiction.

And, IF it is true that Don thinks he sees a contradiction (previously and/or now???) in my positions on I Cor. 11 & I Cor. 14 in the matter above expressed, please bring such up, for I want to always be ready and do wish to resolve every conflict that someone might believe exist in the positions I hold. I believe Don, Jeff and myself are trying to be consistent with what we presently understand God's Word to actually teach. I don't think that any of us have a contradiction presently with regard to harmonizing I Cor. 11 with I Cor. 14 (within each one's respective position). But, we are not all correct in our present understanding and application of these two texts. Thus our discussions. We all agree that God's truth is not inconsistent between the two passages! Its not "who" is right per se, its what is right. I believe that for all three of us.

I look forward to more from brethren Don Martin and Jeff Smelser. Please take Bibles in hand, open minds and examine/test everything that is being written and advanced. Truth has nothing to fear from open discussion and investigation. May God richly bless us all and those who are in need the world over. Thanks for reading.

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 4025, March 22, 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