Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Covering Discussion

The Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Discussion on

I Corinthians 11:1-16

Ward's 18th

This is the next (in sequence) post(s) that Mark J. Ward writes under the Subject line: Re:I Corinthians 11:1-16...

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11:1-16
Date:
Thu, 06 Mar 2003 07:31:10 -0500
From:
"Mark J. Ward" <markjward@darientel.net>
To:
mars-list@mtsu.edu, markjward@darientel.net, dmartin5@concentric.net

Mark J. Ward to Don Martin and the list:

(post one of two)

I hope all are doing well and enjoying their respective work
in the kingdom of God. My good brother Don Martin continues
to do a very good job of representing the "spiritual gifts
view" of I Corinthians 11:1-16, in meaning and application.
We will remind all the readers, and brother Don, of the
assumptions that he asks us to agree with in his position
(including a few new assumptions since our last update). We
appreciate brother Don very much for his willingness to
discuss the Bible so readily. Too many fail to either
discuss, or in so doing display behavior that is unseemly. I
appreciate Don more and more as this effort continues. We
disagree and are pressing our points. (Don, please correct
me if I misunderstand any of your beliefs on this matter as
I never wish to misrepresent another's position. Thanks!).

DON'S POSITION HAS THESE ASSUMPTIONS:
1. "Every woman" doesn't even include every woman at the
church of God at Corinth?
2. "Praying" and "pray" in the text doesn't mean, nor
include, normal uninspired praying?
3. Women were leading prayers and preaching by inspiration
in the assembly in the church of God at Corinth with God's
blessing?
4. When, in Don's theory, inspired women prayed in the
assembly of the local church, the other women in the
assembly were praying, but not in the sense that the lady
who was LEADING the praying was praying, and therefore did
not have to be covered, and the men in the assembly were
praying, but not in the sense that the lady who was LEADING
the praying was praying, and therefore did not have to be
uncovered?
5. The true sense of "every man" in the text is really
"every inspired ONLY prophet"?
6. The true sense of "every woman" in the text is really
"every inspired ONLY prophetess"?
7. Paul's teaching was relative to a custom that existed in
the societal norm of the day that meant something to all the
Jews and Greeks who attended the church of God at Corinth?
8. There was competition between the prophetesses and the
prophets and the use of the covering by women was a way of
setting this straight?
9. Whatever the men were doing, the women were doing the
same thing in the same circumstance?
10. There was a "headship" question at Corinth?
11. We should believe Cavender's strong presumptive
evidence?
12. That the prophetess who "prayed or prophesied" in
PRIVATE SETTINGS, or in the presence of women and children
(as opposed to in the presence of men with spiritual gifts)
did NOT have to cover when "praying or prophesying"?
13. That there is a ~specific headdress~ mandated in I
Corinthians 11:1-16, as Bill Cavender asserts, "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)?
14. That the meaning of katakalupto MANDATES ~hanging down
from~?
15. That the instruction of I Corinthians 11:1-16 mandates
women cover their faces, when covering their heads, at times
of "praying or prophesying"?

COVER ALL THE TIME???

Mark here:
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. I believe Don
knows that, he just likes to keep that before the
readership. Thanks, Don, for continuing to help folks see
that WHATEVER is meant by "praying or prophesying" and
"every women" in the text, that the covering (action) needs
to take place for them at that time. On the other hand, the
men need to do the opposite and be sure to UNCOVER or be
BAREHEADED whenever they engage in "praying or prophesying".
That's what I Cor. 11:1-16 teaches. <g>

EXCUSE ME, I WANT TO OBEY GOD…

Don asked:
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.

Mark here:
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? Certainly that
wasn't a sound argument from Scripture, was it? Did such
show an absurdity? Not when we consider your prophetess
would be in a similar situation <g>.

Don, if we engage folks in the world, for example, in a
conversation and they begin to engage in talk that a
Christian should not participate in, the Christian SHOULD
let such be known. Can you imagine a Christian saying, "Wait
a minute, I don't engage in that kind of talk!"? Sure we
could! And rightfully so! Part of being a Christian is doing
what God said do, when God said do it. Again, Don's comments
do NOTHING TO NEGATE the teaching put forth thus far. Again,
I believe Don knows this, but wants to keep such before the
readership. Thanks again, brother Don. The BIBLE says "every
woman" who "prays OR prophesies" with her head uncovered
dishonors her head (verse 5, NKJV).

Whatever God requires of us, we should obey. Don agrees with
that sentence, but we disagree on the meaning and
application of I Corinthians 11:1-16. God did not require of
first century Christians, nor does He require anything of us
today that is unreasonable. Let's concentrate on
argumentation from the standpoint of what is taught in the
text.

IS A ~SPECIFIC HEADDRESS~ TAUGHT???

Don wrote:
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 here:
Such is not a true sentence above in the way in which Don
means it and teaches it. 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.

VEIL ONLY??? A ~SPECIFIC~ VEIL, AT THAT???

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
Don's view. Please read on.

NOTICE what Don wrote:
"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.'"

Mark here:
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. He believes the scholars
that translated the KJV were not accurate in using "covered"
when compared to the scholars that translated the ASV (1901)
who used "veiled" EVEN THO I have previously produced
definitions that said veiled OR covered and Don produced
definitions that were NOT specific to ONE HEADDRESS!
Further, something can be "veiled" without having to meet
the demands of brethren Don Martin and Bill Cavender! Did
you notice the absence of scripture for a specific headdress
in Don's writing? Is that possibly why he turned to Cavender
(again)? The American Standard Version is not inaccurate, it
just means the same thing that the other versions do that
use words like, "covered" KJV, "headcovering" and "veiled"
Berkley, and "shawl" Wuest. God simply does NOT specify one
headdress to the exclusion of others. Don uses a board of
translators on one version of the English Bible to try to
make a point??? After giving us definitions that include
words other than "veil" (which is not a specific headdress
in the first place).

Did you see what definition [for the hair given AS A
COVERING ~perobolaion~] Don gave (copied) above? It included
the word "veil" which Don tries to use with regards to his
explaining the meaning on katakalupto to INSIST that it
means a specific headdress to the exclusion of others! Did
you get that? 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
definitions given!

Don picks the "parts" of the definitions that suit the
spiritual gifts position well: like hanging down the head
and veil (to apply to the word katakaupto meaning a specific
headdress that we can't read of in the text), but leaves off
(in the sense, or meaning)…~to cover~ or ~to throw around
the head~ (as in the case of peribolaion). <g>. Don, does
the hair have to cover the face in order to be a covering
(perobolaion/veil) for the head? You say it MUST in the case
of katakalupto; why not for perobolaion?

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!

Note Numbers 22:5 and Ezekiel 38:9, 16:

Numbers 22:5, "He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the
son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of
the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold,
there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover
(KATEKALUPSE) the face of the earth, and they abide over
against me:"

Ezekiel 38:9, "Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou
shalt be like a cloud to cover (KATAKALUPSAI) the land,
thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee."

Further in Ezekiel 38:16, "And thou shalt come up against my
people of Israel, as a cloud to cover (KALUPSAI) the land;
it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee
against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall
be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes."

NOTICE that in the two verses above from Ezekiel, a form of
katakalupto and kalupto are BOTH USED for the expression
"cover the land"! They are used interchangeably! Don's
argument doesn't have as much weight/validity as it might
appear on the surface, does it!

Did PEOPLE "hang down from" the face of the earth? Certainly
not! Would a CLOUD "hang down from" the land? Not on your
life! Here are two instances in the Septuagint (the LLX)
wherein forms of katakalupto are used that CANNOT MEAN "hang
down from"! Such is not demanded, but is certainly allowed.
A covering can't be TOO BIG (in the sense that a woman can
wear as LARGE of a covering as she desires, but it doesn't
necessarily have to ~hang down from~ given the full meaning
of katakalupto. Don's covering (given the size he says it
MUST BE) would not only cover the HEAD, but would cover the
BACK as well??? God requires covering the head, but the back
is not what God said cover.

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."

CLARIFICATION
Mark continues here:
Please let me try to be clear about this matter of defining
what the text is requiring. I am NOT saying that when a
covering "hangs down from" the head that it does not meet
the demands of the text. It may and/or can. It MAY hang down
from and do MORE than the text requires (would be my point),
which would be fine, if such is the desire of the woman.
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).

I saw a woman and her teenaged daughter the other day in a
Burger King here in Brunswick. They both (as best I could
tell) had very long hair. It wasn't too cold, but they were
both covered in such a way as to meet the demands of the
text. I fear Don would disagree, possibly in both cases.
Neither had their faces covered. The mother had a beautiful
scarf that was large that covered the top of her head and
the back of her head (all her hairline) and ALSO went way
down her back and may have, at times, covered even her
shoulders. The mother's covering hung down the head <g>.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
teaches. I am NOT saying that these are the ONLY two types
of coverings that may be used, but I am saying that such
meets the demands of the text. Don contends
otherwise.Thanks.

(Cont' 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 3966, March 6, 2003)

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11:1-16
Date:
Thu, 06 Mar 2003 07:32:44 -0500
From:
"Mark J. Ward" <markjward@darientel.net>
To:
mars-list@mtsu.edu, markjward@darientel.net, dmartin5@concentric.net

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

(post two of two)

We continue to study this good Bible topic wherein our good
brother Don Martin asserts that "every woman" today does not
"pray" like I Cor. 11 means it (in that text), so the
instruction is not applicable today. I contend the opposite:
that "every woman" (whether at Corinth or now) is to cover
her head with an artificial covering whenever and wherever
she "prays" as the passage reads. Don has asked two
questions so far of me and we are discussing whether, as Don
contends, there must be a covering that is SPECIFIC to the
exclusion of others, that must cover the face and must be a
certain size. I agree the woman must meet the demands of the
text and "cover" her head, but let's continue to see what
that means. We appreciate the interest and the good demeanor
of our brother Don in this effort.

IS ~COVERING THE FACE~ MANDATED?

Don goes Cavender on us again (when Don wrote):
"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 here:
IF one can see that the hair can cover the head without
covering the face, one can see that an artificial covering
can cover the head without covering the face; its really
that simple. However, due to Don's (and other teachers' )
contention that such has to be the case (i.e. to cover the
head mandates covering the face), let's study this a little
further.

Neither Don, nor brother Cavender, have PROVEN that such is
the case. Just a bare assertion that we are to believe! Such
is not demanded from the wording in I Corinthians 11:1-16.
What IS required of "every woman" is to cover her head when
she prays; what is NOT taught in the text is (see the
Cavender quote from above): "The truth is that the veil is
the covering demanded in I Cor. 11: 4-7…" (meaning a
specific headdress that covers the face to the exclusion of
other articles of clothing)!

Don also argued:
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 here:
Don asserts, without proof that the entire head has to be
covered, including the face. Is this true? Please read on.

Did ~people~ have to "cover" the sea (i.e. the sea is part
of the ~earth~) in order to KATEKALUPSE (cover) the face of
the ~earth~ (Numbers 22:5)? I would imagine, they were on
the LAND part <g> as opposed to the SEA part, wouldn't you?!
But, Isn't the "sea" part of the earth? Sure it is. But you
don't have to cover the sea for the Bible to say cover the
earth. According to Don's reasoning on ~covering the head
means you have to cover the face~, the people would have to
cover the sea, as well as the land, in order to ~cover the
earth~, due to the use of the word (form of katakalupto) we
are discussing as found used in Numbers 22:5! Don's
reasoning on this word would ALSO (not what he believes
probably <g>) would have us believe that the people both:
~hung down from the earth~ AND ~covered the sea~!

So, I hope we can see that it is true that the "face" can be
part of the "head", and yet you can cover the "head" without
HAVING to cover the face. The hair is a covering (even the
definition Don gave includes the word "veil" for perobolaion
<g>), for example, and yet the hair does NOT have to be worn
to cover the face in order for the hair to be called a
covering! (Don, even tho a different word is used, the word
veil is still used in the definitions you gave of ~that~
word). Don has no valid argument here, but wishes such to be
so. No proof, just more from brother Cavender and other
assertions.

Please look to Lev. 14:9 and Lev. 13:45:

Lev. 14:9 , "But it shall be on the seventh day, that he
shall shave all his hair off his head AND his beard AND his
eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall
wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and
he shall be clean." IF the argument be true that the "head"
has to mean the entire head including the "face" too, why
would GOD state above concerning shave all his hair off his
HEAD and proceed to say AND his beard (which is part of his
head, isn't it???) AND his eyebrows (which is also part of
his head, isn't it???). See the point?

Lev. 13:45, "And the leper in whom the plague is, his
clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a
covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean,
unclean." In this verse, the HEAD is to be bare, but the LIP
(which is part of the head <g>) is to be covered! Again we
show wherein something can be said of the "head" without
having to include a part of the head. These Bible examples
negate Don's assertion that covering the head mandates
covering the face.

I am not too surprised at Don's argumentation, except for
his appeal to Cavender again! Don asserts that the covering
is SPECIFIC and must hang down the head and must cover the
face! I anticipated that Don would run to kalumma. That does
him no good. Don, is kalumma even in the text of I
Corinthians 11? Even if it were, and the Holy Spirit did NOT
put it there (tho Don sure tries to get it in there, doesn't
he <g>?) such does NOT demand a specific headdress! Don
wants such to be the case, quotes his friend Cavender, but
Paul (the inspired writer) didn't put it that way.

HEADSHIP AND THE NEW TESTAMENT INSTRUCTION ON COVERING THE
HEAD IN I Cor. 11

Don commented:

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 here:
Paul taught what God would HAVE THEM KNOW. Headship is TIED
by God in New Testament instruction to the covering and
uncovering of heads while praying, for example, but no
argument in this entire text is based on following an
existing custom! Not one! Don asserts they knew it
beforehand (i.e. that the covering already meant something
to the people by "custom" that was ~the same thing~ that
Paul was teaching them) but cannot and has not proven such!
Don flips back and forth between knowing a lot about the
societal norm of a headcovering at Corinth and admitting to
not knowing just what the customs were of that day in the
first century…at Corinth, Ephesus and other places. We
don't have to worry ourselves with that. God gives us in the
text our new covenant instruction…applicable to "every man"
and "every woman" who prays.

Note that women were to be subject to men under the Old Law,
but that the covering was NOT enjoined on women prophetesses
under that law, although Don asserts that Anna exercised
dominion over men in the temple area in Luke 2 (an ~Old
Testament~ prophetess he uses in attempts to teach his ~New
Testament~ spiritual gifts view)! Don teaches that such
instruction (as found in I Cor. 11:1-16) was never taught
BEFORE or AFTER that place in the Bible as tho that really
proves anything (but, we have proven that such was ORALLY
taught elsewhere as New Testament instruction per Matthew
28:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:2; Acts 20:26-28; I Cor. 4:17). There is
no problem in reading I Corinthians 11:1-16 which teaches
that the head of "the woman" is the man and that the head of
"every man" is Christ…and learning that "every women" that
prays uncovered dishonors her head! (verses 5, 6). GOD tied
headship of "every woman" to the covering of heads by women
at times of praying or prophesying in this text, not based
on existing cultural norms.

Don continues to assert that this instruction was for
prophets/prophetesses ONLY. We have taught repeatedly that a
man or a woman can engage in "praying" without "prophesying"
and as such would NOT be a prophet/prophetess! Don again
fails to recognize the meaning of the word OR in the text.

OTHER FIRST CENTURY FOLKS OUTSIDE OF CORINTH

I had asked Don a question to see how wide he would make the
New Testament instruction concerning I Cor. 11 during the
time when spiritual gifts existed (including outside the
city of Corinth), like at Ephesus. Verse 16 indicates there
was widespread teaching on this outside of I Cor. 11
(neither Paul's associates, nor Paul, nor the churches of
God had any such custom as ~the contentious man would
contend for~: which would be for "every woman" to pray
bareheaded and "every man" to pray covered, for example).

Don answered:

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 here:
Don actually puts some of the obedience to the passage in I
Cor. 11 on whether or not the covering means anything "by
custom" to the folks in an area. I deny that such is the
case when Paul gave us the instruction that God would have
us know about this matter! Don says the folks at Ephesus had
to obey <g> IF the covering meant the same in Ephesus with
the involved people! Paul taught the same thing in every
church (I Cor. 4:17). Custom (the societal norm of the
aliens) was not among the reasons Paul gave for "every
woman" to be covered when she "prays" in I Cor. 11.

The instruction of I Corinthians 11:1-16 is sufficient. It's
all we need, even for today, brother Don. Just as the
requirement to dress "modestly" is upon us all, and we have
little particulars (so we have some general
instruction)…such is the case with the covering/uncovering
of heads by "every man" and "every woman" while "praying or
prophesying". We don't have to know what the particulars
were of the societal norms of the day to know that God
requires "every man" to be uncovered and "every woman" to be
covered while "praying or prophesying". Don has a "blend"
position that starts with the "spiritual gifts view" (in the
main) but has a portion of the "custom view" mixed in on his
understanding of I Cor. 11. We know that spiritual gifts
were in existence (in the whole of the New Testament, as it
was being revealed), but that people "pray", for example,
without exercising spiritual gifts (at Corinth and now) so
the instruction applies. We also know that every society
has some type of customary dress (clothes and headgear or
not) for each gender and the various races (even when there
are multiple races co-mingled in the same geographic area),
but such does not change the fact that God's New Testament
instruction (that he would have us KNOW) is given for the
gospel age in I Cor. 11 concerning the covering and
uncovering of heads by "every man" and "every woman" at
times of "praying or prophesying".

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I appreciate brother Don's efforts. Don, please teach us
~wherein you disagree~ with the above teaching and ~why~.
Please read brother Cavender's booklet in full, and then
read brother Wiser's reply, in full (to be at my website
when proofed..part is there now). Brother Cavender's
argumentation is refuted by brother Wiser, in my humble
estimation. Let every person be fully persuaded in his/her
own mind and heart. Take open Bibles. Have open minds. See
if what Don teaches is demanded from the text. Compare this
teaching to the text. There are at least 5 positions
(generally) on this subject. We might BOTH be wrong (but I
don't believe so <g>)! What if I am wrong on "prophesying"
and it is ONLY inspired speech? Has Don proven that
"praying" is ONLY inspired speech? Not on your life! I am
enjoying the study and benefit greatly from such testing of
beliefs. God bless us as we continue. Please read brother
Don's response and see if he answers the argumentation or
simply repeats/rephrases his original comments.

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 3966, March 6, 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