The Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Discussion on
I Corinthians 11:1-16
This is the next (in sequence) post(s) Don Martin writes under the Subject line: Re:I Corinthians 11:1-16...
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:33:40 -0700
"Don Martin" <email@example.com>
Don Martin to Mark Ward and the list (post one of three):
Mark has not disappointed me in this exchange. He has capably addressed the
issues involved in the covering of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 and he has left
off personality attacks and diversionary tactics. For this, I commend Mark.
Mark is obviously convicted in his belief that the covering is binding on
all women today when "praying or prophesying." However, Mark makes
several serious mistakes in his treatment of the "praying or prophesying"
women of I Corinthians 11. First, he fails to realize that Paul addresses
specific women, prophetesses. Mark does not understand what the role
of the prophetess was in Bible times. Mark has manifested a lack of
discipline when it comes to word study and application. The latter I say in
view of Mark's treatment of covering (katakalupto) in I Corinthians 11.
Mark exhibits the ability to establish the occurrence of a given word in the
Greek text, but Mark does not know how to apply this information. Indeed,
the science of semantics is often a tricky matter, one that eventuates in
flawed conclusions. Before I engage in detail in addressing Mark's timely
responsive posts, I do want to again have my question two before us, the
question that prompted Mark's replies. My question two was:
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?
I mentioned that 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 began his posts with a listing of what he views as fifteen
assumptions on my part. Many of Mark's assigned assumptions reflect lack of
context familiarity. Consider his number one: "'Every woman' doesn't even
include every woman at the church of God at Corinth?" Throughout the Bible,
the only woman mentioned as having to be covered was the "praying or
prophesying" woman of I Corinthians 11. These women were the special
prophetesses mentioned in the Bible and these particular women were doing
the same thing as their male counter-parts and, I submit, in the same
circumstances and general climate: concurrently. On these women and these
women only, was the covering bound. Alas, my friend and worthy opponent
Mark does not pay attention to the context. Paul is not addressing every
woman in the church at Corinth, only these prophetesses (women who
prophesied). Mark has had to reduce "prophesying" to "uninspired teaching"
and even to a woman in an audience when a male is delivering uninspired
teaching in making present day application.
In view of Mark's position of all the times a woman today must be covered,
that the woman should have her covering article with her at all times and,
again, in view of Mark's required times, simply wear the covering on her
head at all times. Mark wrote:
Don mentioned that a woman might as well have her head
covered ALL THE TIME, if my position were true. Such is not
really the case, but Don believes so. JUST AS Don's position
had the prophetesses needing to be ready to, and actually
cover their heads at the times of "praying or prophesying"
AS DON INTERPRETS the text to be, so ladies would need to be
ready to, and actually cover their heads at times of
"praying or prophesying" AS I UNDERSTAND the text to teach!
Such is really not so drastic, when we consider God's Will
is to be determined and then followed. Such does NOTHING,
brother Don, to NEGATE my teaching thus far.
Concerned reader, there is a vast difference between the prophetess at
Corinth placing a covering on and down her head when publicly teaching in
the presence of prophets also publicly teaching and in Mark's binding
circumstances. Mark's understanding of the presence of the covering is so
all inclusive that the woman would be safer and better off simply constantly
wearing the 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.
Don is trying to be kind and I appreciate that. Don, please
consider your prophetess, at Corinth, when in a situation
wherein she was about to prophesy (according to your
belief). IF she did NOT have a covering on just before the
occasion to prophesy, might she say, "Excuse me while I put
on my covering"? No point there, good brother! What did you
hope to "prove" in this Bible study by such?
Again, it appears that Mark is so absorbed and determined to make his points
that he really cannot see the difference in the binding circumstances of I
Corinthians 11 and in his application. Mark's position is not only extreme,
but it involves the female Christian in a ridiculous situation. Again, I
say if Mark's understanding is correct, then the female should simply have
her head covered at all times when in public and when in private.
Please continue to post two.
(from MARS-List Digest 3979, March 9, 2003)
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:34:18 -0700
"Don Martin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Don Martin to Mark Ward and the list (post two of three):
Regarding the covering, Mark said:
In the Greek text, the covering is
an action (verb or adjective) and not a noun! Don knows
this, but argues just as we anticipated, being consistent
with the "spiritual gifts position". We DO need to know "to
cover", but Don acts as tho we need to know something about
a "specific headdress" which he asserts, but cannot prove!
See the DIFFERENCE in what brother Don wrote above and what
really is the case? Even if a form of kalumma (noun) was
used in I Cor. 11:1-16, God did NOT specify the color, size,
weight, opacity, or length of any particular headdress.
Mark seems to do as many when it comes to polemic exchange: They basically
have a path already laid out that they will follow in anticipating and
answering arguments. Hence, Mark ignores much of my material that carefully
and progressively establishes the covering of I Corinthians 11, its nature,
size, and purpose. I also said that in view of what is taught, the common
hat placed on the crown of the head will not suffice. Most of the momentum
in Mark's counter arguments is based on transversing the vocabulary of the
Septuagint Translation (Hebrew to Greek in about 250 B. C.). In teaching
Greek, I have mentioned that the Septuagint has a place in lexicography.
We must realize, though, that the Septuagint pre-dated the New Testament
by about 300 hundred years (words usage can certainly change) and the
seventy translators of the Septuagint were not inspired. However, I have
stressed the necessity of considering the New Testament context in which a
word occurs. Most words have a number of nuances and a range of usage,
often including the figurative application. Many attempt to find an unusual
and isolated usage of a word and then present this unusual nuance to prove a
doctrine that can not otherwise be supported in the scriptures. This, I say
kindly, is exactly what Mark has done regarding "covering." Mark took
"prophet" in Titus 1: 12 (the Cretians viewed the man as a prophet and he
evidently professed to be a prophet) and tried to prove that "prophesy" can
be simply uninspired teaching as opposed to teaching provided by the direct
impetus of the Holy Spirit (cp. 2 Pet. 1: 19-21). I rather took Paul's own
use of "prophet" and "prophesy" in the vocabulary of I Corinthians and
showed that the terms never meant uninspired teaching. Mark, as I recall,
never touched this argument and fact. Mark is a very zealous student, but
in the matter of word study and argument (linguistics), he lacks discipline
and direction. Also, we must appreciate that Paul presents the covering in
I Corinthians 11 very carefully, as a matter that was bound on these
prophetesses. What I mean by this is in a setting of qualification and
requirement, words seem to be mostly used with their basic meaning
Here are some highlights of what I submitted relative to the covering of I
Corinthians 11, facts that Mark basically rejects:
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."
...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).
...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.
Mark displays his lack of understanding of the text and the used words as
seen in his following statement:
Brother Don, did you notice that a form of katakalupto is
NOT even found in verse 4? The part that you quoted about
having (something) down the head was about the verse
concerning the man having anything/something on the head.but
a form of katakalupto (from which you are basing your
assertion) is not even in that verse 4, is it? Note the
quote by Don, ""Note: In 1 Cor. 11:4, 'having his head
covered' is, lit., 'having (something) down the head."
What Mark apparently does not realized is that the original to which Vine
alludes is, "kata kephales," literally, down (kata) over head (kephales, I
Cor. 11: 4). Notice the presence of "kata," down. It appears Paul is
emphasizing the action of "down" in verse four. The kata kephales
corresponds to katakalupto (I Cor. 11: 6, 7). Again, Mark is not paying
close attention to the pertinent verses and germane wording.
Regarding all the foregoing documented evidence pertaining to the covering
of I Corinthians 11, Mark simply wrote:
Don MIGHT have a point if ALL the definitions he quotes ONLY
said VEIL and included HANGING DOWN THE HEAD and INCLUDED
THE FACE. But such is not in the inspired text, nor demanded
from it. Further, the definitions actually betray brother
Mark universally binds the covering on all women, changes "prophesying" to
mean uninspired teaching and applies it to even a woman in an audience
having an uninspired male teacher, and then he rejects what is said about
the covering that Paul bound on the prophetesses at Corinth, then my friend
Mark accuses me of rejecting the teaching of I Corinthians 11: 3-16.
Please read post three.
(from MARS-List Digest 3979, March 9, 2003)
Re: I Corinthians 11: 1-16
Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:34:50 -0700
"Don Martin" <email@example.com>
Don Martin to Mark Ward and the list (post three of three and my third
For the sake of argument, if Don is right, women would
simply have to wear that kind of a covering whenever
"praying or prophesying". IF Don is right on his "specific
headdress" then whenever men pray, so long as they don't
have on that specific headdress, they are NOT COVERED! See
the point? But in reality, Don has not proven from the
SCRIPTURES a specific headdress.
As succinct as I can be, I have said that the katakalopto is the act (verb)
of covering and hanging down. This is the meaning of the word and in a
context in which the covering is being bound and in the absence of anything
to indicate differently, we must accept the definition of the word. I have
shared comments from such men as Mark himself as quotes, W. E. Vine and A.
T. Robertson who say that from katakalupto, one may infer the kalumma (noun,
the veil). I then produced some biblical facts about the veil or kalumma.
Again, notice Robertson's statement: "Literally, having a veil (kalumma
understood) down from the head." (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.
4, pg. 159). Nicoll, who of the most highly recognized Greek grammarians
said, "'Wearing down from the head (a veil,' kalumma understood")
(Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. 2, pg. 872). Vine, from whom Mark
regularly has quotes, 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. " Rather than deal with this, Mark takes
off running all over the place to find various ways our verb form is
used and ignores the context of I Corinthians 11.
What I have said is that the covering Paul is binding on the prophetess in
her special circumstances was that which covered the head and hanged
down. Instead of accepting the usage of katakalupto by Paul, Mark jumps
to the natural covering, the hair (peribolaion).
Brother Don, is the hair to be worn a certain
way (not just long, but a style, a certain specific cut) in
order to be a "specific headdress" ALSO? Please re-read the
definition for peribolaion above! Does the hair have to
cover the face to be a covering? That ALONE should teach us
that brother Don's argument concerning katakalupto having to
mean a specific headdress is incorrect reasoning from the
Again, Mark assumes that what is said about the natural covering (hair) and
the artificial covering must perfectly correspond. The hair must cover the
head in order to be a covering. In the case of the artificial covering, it
must also cover the head, but also hang down. No, a specific hair style is
not bound on the prophetess other than her hair was to cover. The point
that the above quoted scholars are making that Mark ignores is what better
satisfied the requirements of katakalupto than the veil, the kalumma. The
kalumma covered the head and hanged down. We have also seen that the
kalumma in the case of Moses covered the face. Mark does not like this
IS HANGING DOWN FROM MANDATED?
Don takes a compound Greek word that is found only in one
text in the New Testament and makes an incorrect argument on
it. Kata+kalupto is only found in the NT in I Cor. 11th
chapter. But look at a case in the LLX, wherein katakalupto
and kalupto are used INTERCHANGEABLY. Don has no point on
this matter that amounts to us being forced to accept the
specific headdress (that is NOT in the inspired record) of
brother Cavender's choosing!
It was the Holy Spirit who combined the preposition, kata, and the verb
kalupto, not I. As we have seen Mark's word gymnastics in the case of
"prophesying," we are also witnessing such maneuvers in the case of
katakalupto. All I am doing is insisting that we observe words used by the
Spirit and allow the context to make contributions to the associated
conceptual meaning. Mark ignores the word, its context, and runs all over
the place in an effort to say, "I have found this particular nuance over
here...therefore, the covering of I Corinthians 11 does not mean to cover
and hang down."
I have seen women who supposedly believed that all women must be covered
simply wear a small circular object about three inches in total covering
space on the crown of their head and maintain that they were in compliance
of katakalupto. I have seen others wear an article (transparent and full
of holes) on the crown of their head that completely covered the crown, but
that was all. The kalumma mentioned in the Bible that scholars believe was
implied by katakalupto covered the head, including the face to where the
face could not be seen (cp. 2 Cor. 3: 13, Ex. 34: 33ff.). It should be Mark
who is insisting on conformity to what is taught regarding the
particularities of the covering. I say this since Mark binds the covering
and I believe I Corinthians 11: 3-16 was special and indigenous to the age
of miracles (prophesy).
Mark rejects Paul's teaching, the teaching he is saying that I refuse:
Mark says: Further, another type of covering might NOT "hang down from"
the head and still meet the demands of the text to cover the
head. That is what I am contending. Don appears to argue as
tho' "hang down from the head" is inherent in the meaning of
the word katakalupto, uses Vine's to attempt to prove this,
when Vine's (on that specific wording) is actually
commenting on a verse that doesn't even have the word
katakalupto in it (the one talking about men having
something/anything on the head p.252 a "note" on verse 4).
Mark quibbles about Vine's reference to I Corinthians 11: 4, but rejects
Vine's comments in total regarding katakalupto meaning to cover and hang
down. Mark, the attached preposition kata means down.
Mark then provided us with an example that he deems to be exemplary of
katakalupto (a mother and a daughter, I shall insert his comments below
regarding the daughter):
The daughter, had on a 'boggan (or skull cap???) that looked to
have a LOT of hair under it, and the cap CLUNG to her head,
but covered the top of her head and the back of her head,
but DID NOT hang down from the head. ALL her hair was tucked
up under this cap and it was completely covering her
hairline (on her neck). I believe BOTH women had covered
their heads in the way in which the instruction in I Cor. 11
Thus, a "skull cap" that clung to the head, covered the top and the back of
the head, "but DID NOT hang down from the head" is Mark's application of
katakalupto. In view of katakalupto (to cover and hang down) used in a
climate of obvious intended definition (I Cor. 11), I cannot imagine Paul's
covered prophetess simply having on a "skull cap" that covered the top and
back of the head but did not hang down.
I again say this without rancor but Mark reduces "prophesy" to uninspired
teaching in terms of contemporary application, makes all women then and now
the recipients of Paul's teaching that was actually given to the inspired
prophetess, requires the covering in circumstances totally beyond the
indicated application of Paul for the prophetesses, and now tells us that a
"skull cap" that covered the top and back of the head, but did not hang
down, satisfies the head covering required by katakalupto!
Mark and I have covered the subjects of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, what they
were doing, how and when they were doing it, and the covering to be worn by
these women in this circumstance. In every case, Mark and I have had
a totally different undestanding, conclusion, and application. I trust
that as the reader, you have noticed this and also tried to determine why
this is the case. This has been a good study, though, because it has
provided you with material to ascertain for yourself the truth. At this
point, I want to ask my third and perhaps final question of Mark. My third
question is a probing one to determine Mark's view of the seriousness of the
covering matter and how brethren should view the covering issue:
Is it necessary for "praying or prophesying" women today to have their head
covered in order to be saved and enjoy the fellowship of faithful brethren,
and are those who do not bind the covering today false teachers?
I again thank Mark and you for your interest and time.
Don Martin firstname.lastname@example.org
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 3979, March 9, 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 email@example.com]
Email the Editor at firstname.lastname@example.org
| CURRENT ISSUE | MAIN PAGE | BACK ISSUES | DISCUSSION PAGE |
| SPECIAL STUDIES | SERMON OUTLINES |