Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Covering Discussion

The Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Discussion on

I Corinthians 11:1-16

Martin's 17th

This is the next (in sequence) post(s) Don Martin writes under the Subject line: Re:I Corinthians 11:1-16...

Subject:
My status regarding the I Corinthians 11: 1-16 exchange
Date:
Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:21:59 -0700
From:
"Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To:
<mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to the list:

I trust all are enjoying a good Monday.

I want all who are following the exchange that Mark Ward and I are having on
the covering issue to know that I am aware of Mark's latest post and his
answers to my question two. I do plan on responding just as soon as I can.

I have spent a large part of four days dealing with the Ron Halbrook MDR
issue. I am going to have to get a little nap this afternoon and then I
plan on resuming work on my reply posts to Mark.

Mark is to be commended for his fine manner in this whole exchange. Mark
comes up to the plate and addresses questions and arguments proposed to him.
I can tell you this, I wish all with whom I have to differ were as nice and
forthright as Mark!

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 3959, March 3, 2003)

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Date:
Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:04:51 -0700
From:
"Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To:
<mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to Mark Ward and the list (post one of three):

I commend Mark and those of you who are following this exchange for your
interest. Mark and my essential difference regarding the covering of I
Corinthians 11: 3-16 is that Mark believes the covering is bound on all
women and in all circumstances, just as long as they are "praying or
prophesying." I contend that the covering was only bound on the inspired
prophetess (woman who prophesied). A portion of Mark's post was simply a
reiteration of matters already discussed. Hence, I shall only address a
few matters and then focus on his answers to my question two (next post).

I made the following statement to which Mark replies:

Don wrote:
I do not mean to be crude or facetious but in view of Mark's
position, I suppose every female Christian had better have a
veil in her possession at all times.

Mark here:
Women only need to cover when they "pray or prophesy",
brother Don. What about your prophetesses, Don? Reckon they
needed to have something with them to cover their head in
case they had oppty to "pray or prophesy"? God did not
require anything unreasonable of the women in Paul's day,
and He does not require anything unreasonable today.

Don reflects:

I wrote in my last post:

>From my question one, we learned that Mark binds the covering on women who
are praying or teaching in the total absence of any man, while only teaching
women, while teaching children, even their own children in the privacy of
their house, and even when they pray in the privacy of their own closets.

If Mark's understanding of universal binding nature of the covering were
correct, I suppose that it would be wise to issue an authentic (next
question) covering to every female whom we baptize. After all, she is going
to need to have it with her at all times. If she is attempting to one on
one instruct a man, she must put on her covering; if she is speaking with a
woman about spiritual matters, she will have to be covered; if she is
babysitting the child next door and has a chance to impart a spiritual
truth, she will have to first put on her covering; or if she is driving down
the road and desires to approach God in prayer, she will have to get out her
covering and place it on her head. It seems to me, I say this without
rancor, that in view of all the circumstances that would demand the
placement of the covering, it would be better for her to simply wear the
coving at all times, perhaps even in her sleep, because she might wake up
and want to pray to God about a particular matter. I say all of this based
on Mark's own teaching about when the woman must wear the artificial
covering about which we are studying. In view of the binding nature of the
covering on all women, according to Mark, and in view of all the
circumstances that call for the covering, we should now turn our attention
to the covering itself. Hence, my question number two.

Don contrasts the praying or prophesying prophetess with Mark having all
women covered any time they "pray" and anytime they "teach":

Mark does not seem to realize the signal difference between the occasions
when the inspired prophetesses at Corinth would be covered and his binding
application for all women today. The covering of I Corinthians 11 would
only be applicable when these inspired women were functioning with the
inspired men, the praying or prophesying men (prophets). In Mark's
understanding, a woman in total privacy while praying to God would need to
be covered. Mark totally misunderstands the context of the covering,
the inspired subjects, what these subjects did, and the setting in which
they prayed or prophesied.

In view of Mark's idea and explanation of "praying" (all prayer, anywhere
and anytime, even prayer lead by another) and "prophesying" (even uninspired
teaching including a mother teaching her children in the privacy of her
home), I still maintain that when a female is baptized, she should be issued
a covering. Can you imagine the female Christian being at work and a fellow
male or female employee asking her, "Where do you attend and what do you
religiously believe" having to say, "Excuse me while I put on my covering"?
The female Christian is outside working in the yard and the child next door
asks her, "Can you tell me about angels?" She would have to go get her
covering and place it on her head before she replied. This is Mark's
understanding of the covering of I Corinthians 11. Mark is very intelligent
and capable, however, he has terribly misunderstood Paul's teaching for the
special "praying or prophesying" women at Corinth.

Please see post two.

(from MARS-List Digest 3960, March 4, 2003)

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Date:
Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:05:23 -0700
From:
"Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To:
<mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to Mark Ward and the list (post two of three):

My question two is:

What was the artificial covering (katakalupto), will the
typical doily or hat today placed on the crown of the head
satisfy the requirements, and what was its meaning in the
situation of I Corinthians 11: 3-16?

Since the covering is to be a vital part and an article that is constantly
accompanying the female Christian, according to Mark, it is
imperative that we know exactly what was the covering.

Mark correctly states our agreement:

Don and I agree that long hair is "a covering" (vs 14,15), but not the
artificial covering of the earlier verses in the text (vs. 1-13).

Don muses:

Is not it wonderful that Mark and I agree? How is it that we both agree
that there are two coverings in the text of I Corinthians 11: 3-16? The
answer is that we are both paying close attention to the context and
allowing the context to define the terms and action. It is apparent that
there is the attached or natural covering (the hair) and the covering
that is put on at the specified times and circumstances (I Cor. 11: 15; 6).
If we both paid the same attention to the context and milieu relative to
who these people were, what precisely they were doing, and the climate
in which they were doing it, Mark and I would also be in agreement
regarding the covering not being binding on all women today and in
all circumstances.

It is very interesting that Mark quotes W. E. Vine pertaining to what was
the covering (katakalupto) of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. Marks wrote:

VINE's, in defining words from the King James Version, under
"COVER" says this word, katakalupto, means, "...to cover
up...to cover oneself..." (page 252).

Don here:

Vine comments thus on peribolaion, the Greek word regarding the natural
covering, the hair:

"Noun, peribolaion literally denotes 'something thrown around' (peri,
'around,' ballo, 'to throw'); hence, 'a veil, covering,' 1 Cor. 11:15

Vine also briefly addresses katakalupto, the covering of the
head:

"Verb katakalupto 'to cover up' (kata, intensive), in the Middle Voice, 'to
cover oneself,' is used in 1 Cor. 11:6,7 (RV, 'veiled')."

Now notice Vine's additional important comment on katakalupto, the
artificial covering these prophetesses were to wear:

"Note: In 1 Cor. 11:4, 'having his head covered' is, lit., 'having
(something) down the head.'"

It is in I Corinthians 11: 6, 7, regarding what these special women
were to wear in their circumstance of "praying or prophesying," we
find the compound word, katakalupto. Kalupto is a verb, meaning to
cover. It is the word used by Peter when he penned, "...Love covereth
(kalupto) a multitude of sins" (I Pet. 4: 8). The attached preposition
kata (meaning down) intensifies the meaning of kalupto. The meaning
is to cover and the thing which covers the object is to hang down.
Hence, the object to which katakalupto is applied is covered to the point of
the covering hanging down or in the case of I Corinthians 11: 6, 7,
meaning down the head (see Vine above). What is the thing that covers,
covers the head and hangs down?

Mark and concerned readers, please note that W. E. Vine refers to the verb
kalupto and in reference to kalupto he says the following: "Cp. the
corresponding noun kalumma, a veil, 2 Cor. 3: 13, 14, 15, 16. See veil."
Concerning the "corresponding noun" kalumma, Vine states, "A covering, is
used (a) of the veil which Moses put over his face when descending mount
Sinai, thus preventing Israel from beholding the glory, 2 Cor. 3: 13."

Many scholars and expositors believe that while the verb is used in I
Corinthians 11: 6, 7 (katakalupto, to cover), the noun (kalumma, a veil) is
to be inferred. They say this primarily based on the description of
"covering" being to cover and that hangs down. I believe that they are
correct and that this view is the natural conclusion. Hence, the obvious
meaning is the kalumma (noun) or veil. This is probably why some
translations have "veiled" in I Corinthians 11: 6, 7 (see two of the best
translations ever made, The American Standard of 1901 and the
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Nestle/Marshall).

Regarding what the covering that covered the head and hanged down was,
A. T. Robertson remarks in connection with our text: "Literally, having a
veil (kalumma understood) down from the head." (Word Pictures in the New
Testament, Vol. 4, pg. 159). Nicoll's celebrated Greek work says, "'Wearing
down from the head (a veil,' kalumma understood") (Expositor's Greek
Testament, Vol. 2, pg. 872).

One author, with whom I agree, wrote, "The truth is that the veil is
the covering demanded in I Cor. 11: 4-7. This veil fully covered the head
and hanged down from the head....It can be large enough to carry and hold
six measures of barley, four and one-half gallons, Ruth 3: 15-17, and of
such texture and material so that the face cannot be seen. Exo. 34: 33-35;
2 Cor. 3: 13." (The Woman and Her Covering, pg. 30, by Bill Cavender).

Mark, the veil (kalumma) of 2 Corinthians 3: 13 (see Ex. 34: 33-35) covered
Moses' face so that the people could not see it. Notice that the covering
of I Corinthians 11: 6, 7 (katakalupto) covered the head. Therefore, the
required covering was that which covered the head, the face and the head,
and hanged down.

You are invited to read post three.

(from MARS-List Digest 3960, March 4, 2003)

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Date:
Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:06:09 -0700
From:
"Don Martin" <dmartin5@concentric.net>
To:
<mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu>

Don Martin to Mark Ward and the list (post three of three):

Regarding the required covering for these "praying or prophesying" women,
Mark wrote:

Similarly, women should "cover" their heads when they pray
by choosing articles of clothing that meet the requirement
"to cover". Don's "hat" in his question above is too generic
for me to comment on in detail. Some hats would and other
hats might not suffice....

Don comments:

My question was, "will the typical doily or hat today placed on the crown of
the head satisfy the requirements...?" Mark said, "Some hats would
and other hats might not suffice...." I have, frankly, never seen a hat
that was placed on the crown of the head that covered the head and the
face where the face could not be seen and the hat hanged down
(by the way, the Greeks had a specific word for hat, pilos). In observing
those who think they are practicing the covering of I Corinthians 11, I
have never seen anything worn that I think satisfies the requirements of
katakalupto and the implied kalumma. If the covering is such an issue
for all women today, you would think Mark would know a little more about
what the covering is. Mark says that "Since God did not LIMIT or
SPECIFY the article (i.e. size...." Mark, the text does specify the "size,"
it must cover the head and hang down.

The position Mark and others hold that all women today must be covered when
they are "praying or prophesying" places them in an obvious anachronistic
position (making antiquated arguments). Please observe the language Mark
must used and is using: "...This includes the teaching that men are to have
short hair in the gospel age. Women are to wear long hair in this
dispensation. Men are not to have anything (artificial) on their heads when
they pray or when they prophesy. Women are to cover their heads
when they pray or when they engage in prophesying.

In view of the cessation of inspired men and women, Mark, as seen, must some
how "force" all this language that comprises his basic premise to applicable
language that applies to all women today. Hence, he understands the
"praying" of the text as even a woman seated in the religious assembly when
a male leads a public prayer. He reduces "prophesying" to uninspired
teaching and even to a woman seated in an assembly where a man is preaching
or teaching. While doing all this, Mark then says it is I who will not
admit the context of I Corinthians 11: 3-16.

Again, my question two is: "What was the artificial covering (katakalupto),
will the typical doily or hat today placed on the crown of the head
satisfy the requirements, and what was its meaning in the situation of
I Corinthians 11: 3-16?"

Regarding the third part of my question, Mark wrote:

PART THREE OF QUESTION TWO
The meaning of the covering in the text of I Corinthians
11:1-16 was just what we have recorded by Paul as he taught
them what God would have them know (and us to know). This is
New Testament instruction for the gospel age on the subject
of covered and uncovered heads for every man and every woman
at times of praying or prophesying. Various inspired reasons
are given as to why God wants to see a distinction between
the men and women at times stated (headship, order of
creation, because of the angels, etc). This includes the
teaching that men are to have short hair in the gospel age.
Women are to wear long hair in this dispensation. Men are
not to have anything (artificial) on their heads when they
pray or when they prophesy. Women are to cover their heads
when they pray or when they engage in prophesying.

Don comments:

I am surprised that Mark admits that headship "distinction between
the men and women at times stated (headship...)" was why the covering of I
Corinthians 11: 3-13 was enjoined on the "praying or prophesying women."
This is precisely my contention: The covering of the head and hanging down
symbolized to those people headship subjection (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). The
artificial covering was especially called for in the circumstance of these
prophets and prophetesses doing the same thing. This is one of the
paramount reasons that I believe these prophets and prophetesses were not
only doing the same thing, but also doing the same thing in the same
circumstance, and in the exact same general climate: concurrently.

Mark asked me:

Don, did the inspired prophetess at Ephesus, for example, have to
cover her head when (according to your position) she was
LEADING the church assembly in "praying or prophesying"?

Don answers:

Mark, I am not totally sure what you are asking. If Ephesus had "a
prophetess" and if the covering meant the same in Ephesus and with the
involved people, "yes," she would also have to be covered (I Cor. 11: 16).
Mark and dear readers, there is a lot that no man knows about some of the
particulars of the covering situation. As I heretofore intimated, we simply
do not know all the particularities about the general covering practice
during the first century among different cultures and at different
locations.

Mark, I have great patience with you because I believe you are sincerely
convicted in what you believe. By pressing my points, I trust that I do not
come across as disrespectful and mean-spirited. Having again repeated this,
I want it perfectly clear that I believe you are binding where God has not
bound when you say that all women today "praying or prophesying" must be
covered. I shall await any comments, arguments, or questions you may have.
I shall look forward especially to you commenting more on the nature of the
covering of I Corinthians 11. I again repeat that in view of all the
particular circumstances in which you believe the female Christian today
must be covered, an authentic covering (not a hat or doily that simply
covers the crown of the head) should be issued to every female who is
baptized and it be stressed that they have the article with them at all
times. I think you have agreed with this.

Fellow students of the word, I encourage you to read with interest Mark's
next responsive post. Thank you for your time and desire to learn the word
of God. I again thank Mark for all of his sacrifices (time, doing other
things, etc.) in engaging me in this exchange and for being honest and
forthright in stating and contending for what he believes to be the truth.
We need more men like Mark who will stand up for their beliefs!

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 3960, March 4, 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