A cyclical issue among some Bible students has been the teaching relative to the head covering found in I Corinthians 11: 3-16.  Some have contended that the text is general and that the covering is bound on all women today.   Others have held the position that the teaching is special and involved limited application, even in the First Century.  The following exchange held between "William Henderson" and me focuses on this basic issue.  The following exchange was conducted on an Internet list where there were scores of preachers and hundreds of members of the church of Christ potentially examining every argument and word.  I recommend that before you read the following discussion, you first read, "The Truth about the Veil" (click on to visit). 

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

I personally know William and I have corresponded with him on a number of occasions. William from the first impressed me as a super nice and high quality person. I appreciate very much William's statement:

Don and I love each other tremendously, yet disagree on a few Bible matters (as do many of us on this list).

Don comments:

While William and I mutually appreciate each other, we do not allow personal feelings to blind us as to doctrinal differences. I knew when William joined this list that there would come a time that he and I would have an exchange on the covering of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. I also believe this: This exchange will be a quality discussion without mud slinging or personality assault! I say this because I have confidence in William.

I shall endeavor to be complete but succinct in my answering (I have invited William to go first by asking me five questions on the text of I Corinthians 11: 3-16). William's first question is a good one and focuses on the meat of the matter (I will have more material in this first answer because it is essential that I provide a good definition of the key terms of the discussion). 

William's question one:

1. Don, why do you presently teach that "praying" and "pray" in I Cor. 11:1-16 is EXCLUSIVELY "miraculous"?

Don answers:

In order to believe a certain thing, there must be a reason. Hence, William's good question pertains to causation.

In short, I believe and teach that the "praying" and "prophesying" of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 are miraculous in origin, nature, and design because of the basic and ordinary meaning of "prophecy" and the connection of "praying" with "prophesying," and also their use in the context of I Corinthians 11, as well as the general climate of the text, context, and remote contexts (chapters twelve and fourteen). Allow me to simplify this:

A. I understand "prophecy" to have the general meaning of that which is miraculous and by the connecting of "praying" to "prophesying, " I understand the praying to also be a product of the miraculous leading of the Holy Spirit (cp. Eph. 6: 18).

B. "Praying" and "prophesying" are used in what I understand to be a climate pertaining to the miraculous (ch. 11, 12, 14). While the extended discussion regarding spiritual gifts officially begins in 12: 1, I believe the introduction of headship (general teaching) in 11: 3 prompted a specific application to a prevailing circumstance in the church at Corinth in which headship was being violated, based on the meaning of the "covering" and how the actions of the prophets and prophetesses were viewed.

C. "Prophecy" in chapter 11 is used in the way "prophecy" is used in the vocabulary of I Corinthians, a miraculous gift of the Spirit, number six to be exact (see chapter 12: 10). Since "praying" is joined to "prophesying," I understand the praying to have also been inspired or Spirit led.

Prophesy (propheteia, a common noun) is a compound word, made up essentially of two parts, pro, meaning forth and phemi, meaning to speak; hence, to speak forth. The common meaning of prophesy is not just naturally speaking forth. W. E. Vine states, "Though much of OT prophecy was purely predictive, see Micah 5:2, e.g., and cp. John 11:51, prophecy is not necessarily, nor even primarily, fore-telling. It is the declaration of that which cannot be known by natural means, Matt. 26:68, it is the forth-telling of the will of God, whether with reference to the past, the present, or the future, see Gen. 20:7; Deut. 18:18; Rev. 10:11; 11:3...."

Vine comments on the verb propheteuo thus: "To be a prophet, to prophesy, is used (a) with the primary meaning of telling forth the Divine counsels...." After making this statement regarding propheteuo, Vine refers to I Corinthians 11: 4, 5, 13: 9, 14: 1, 3-5, 24, 31, 39 (Expositor Dictionary of New Testament Words).

Continued in next post.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

In our exchange on I Corinthians 11: 1-16, William asked me (question one of five):

1. Don, why do you presently teach that "praying" and "pray" in I Cor. 11:1-16 is EXCLUSIVELY "miraculous"?

I am in the process of showing that "prophecy" normally refers to one speaking forth by the miraculous assistance of God. I have quoted W. E. Vine regarding the verb propheteuo used in I Corinthians 11: 4, 5 pertaining to the miraculous nature of the prophesying of the men and women of the text. Under "prophet" (prophetes), Vine says, "a proclaimer of a divine message, denoted among the Greeks an interpreter of the oracles of gods." There is absolutely no doubt but what the common meaning of "prophecy" is utterance that is done by Divine assistance as opposed to naturally speaking (Vine often has an advantage over some lexicographers in that he is also an exegete; hence, familiar with contextual usage). One might ask about pseudoprophetes (false prophet, 2 Pet. 2: 1), were these men miraculously led? No, they were not. The idea, though, is that they claimed to be prophets, but in reality they were false prophets (cp. Tit. 1: 12). Such a use of "prophet" does not negate the normal and common meaning.

Notice I Corinthians 11: 4, 5: "Every man praying or prophesying...But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth...." (pas Anna proseuchomenos he propheteuon....pasa de gune proseuchomene he propheteuousa....). You will observe that the language is the same, except for accommodating grammatical changes. What the men (prophets) were doing, the women (prophetesses) were
doing (see case of "Anna, a prophetess," Lk. 2: 36-38).

Propheteia ("prophecy") is used about 19 times in the Greek New Testament and is found 5 times in I Corinthians. Propheteuo ("prophesied," etc.) is used a total of 28 times, 11 times in I Corinthians; and prophetes ("prophet") is found 149 times and 6 times in I Corinthians. There is not any thing present in the combined 22 occurrences of these words in the vocabulary of I Corinthians to suggest any thing but the common and normal meaning of the words. Again, prophets were actuated by the Holy Spirit (I Pet. 1: 11, 2 Pet. 1: 21). They miraculously foretold events to come and delivered God breathed teaching.

Please direct you attention briefly to the act of "praying" in connection with "prophesying" (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). I believe the scriptures present the concept and the first century practice not only of miraculous prophesying but also of Spirit led prayer. "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also," Paul wrote (I Cor. 14: 15). This statement was made in the setting of spiritual gifts and miraculous impetus (see I Cor. 14: 1ff.). Notice Matthew Henry's comments on the verse:

"...The apostle here sums up the argument hitherto, and, I. Directs them how they should sing and pray in public (v. 15): What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also. I will sing with the spirit, etc. He does not forbid their praying or singing under a divine afflatus, or when they were inspired for this purpose, or had such a spiritual gift communicated to them; but he would have them perform both so as to be understood by others, that others might join with them....." (Complete Commentary on the Bible, 1706). Since prayer was in some cases Spirit led and in view of prayer being mentioned as something done in connection with prophesying in I Corinthians 11: 4, 5, I believe it is axiomatic that the prayer thus mentioned was also "inspired." (The prophetess was obviously the exception in what she was doing. I say this in view of I Timothy 2: 8, men only, andras, were to publicly pray, and verse 12).

The foregoing are some of the reasons why I believe and teach that "praying" and "pray" in I Corinthians. 11:1-16 is not the result of natural impetus, but of the supernatural guidance of the Spirit, just as in the case with prophecy. To attempt to reduce prophesying and praying in the text of I Corinthians 11: 1-16 to ordinary and uninspired teaching and prayer is to totally ignore and abuse the setting, the occasion, and the people under consideration. In addition to unjustifiably limiting praying and prophesying, to contend that a woman today in the assembly must be "covered," is to promote an anachronism (more later).

I have said the above without any animosity for my friend William. I believe William to be very conscientious and zealous. I believe he in his zeal, as I have some time done, has misunderstood and misapplied I Corinthians 11: 1-16. I encourage you to read what William has to say.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list (comments and question two):

William has graciously responded to my answer to his first question relative to the meaning of "praying" and "pray" in the text of I Cor. 11:1-16. Willaim also submitted question two for me to answer. I shall as briefly as I can touch on a few areas of Willaim's good post and then address question two.

William wrote:

Please notice that Don reasons from the word "prophesying" in I Cor. 11 toward the word "praying" (in determining the meaning of PRAYING), even though praying is:

(1) first in order in the verse, and
(2) separated by the word "OR" from "prophesying" in the text.

Don comments:

William makes as good of argument that can be made and asks a good question. Paul wrote: "Every man praying or prophesying...But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth...." (pas Anna proseuchomenos he propheteuon....pasa de gune proseuchomene he propheteuousa....). (I Cor. 11: 4, 5.)

Prayer has a normal meaning that does not necessarily include miraculous impetus, I freely grant this. As we look at verses such as, "pray without ceasing," we do not associate the supernatural (I Thes. 5: 17). Prophecy, to the converse, has the ordinary meaning of speaking forth by divine assistance, as seen in my first post. Words must be considered in their syntax and context. Since "praying" is used in the setting (connection) of "prophesying" (same verses), I conclude that the praying is also miraculous, especially in view of the general and extended context. I also say this in view of "pray" having the potential of miraculous impetus (I Cor. 14: 15). This is the reason I first considered "prophesying" and the context anterior to making a definitional judgement about the "praying" under consideration in I Corinthians 11: 4, 5. The prophesying in the text was not just natural, uninspired teaching and the praying in the setting was not natural or unassisted praying, I submit. These were special men and women; they were in fact: prophets and prophetesses (their function so classifies them).

My friend William said:

Don connects where the Holy Spirit separates.

Don comments:

William is absolutely correct in saying that the Holy Spirit separated praying from prophesying. He did this by the use of "or" (he). I do not intend to go into detail about the technical use of "or" (he) as opposed to "and" (kai). I think a simple and uncomplicated answer is that the Spirit is syntactically saying that the prophet or prophetess is praying or he/she is prophesying, not simultaneously praying and (kai) prophesying. Please notice that I did not say that Paul coupled praying and prophesying. Without getting meticulously and painstakingly particular, Paul is addressing the matter of praying and prophesying involving prophets and prophetesses and how they were to do what they were doing in the circumstances. The point is, nevertheless, both praying and prophesying are under consideration together in the same circumstances as opposed to praying and prophesying being reviewed in different, isolated settings. What Paul says about praying is also applicable to prophesying (I Cor. 11: 6-16).

William reasoned:

Also, I don't think brother Don believes in either "inspired/miraculous eating" in Amos 7:12 or "inspired/miraculous giving" in Romans 12: 6-8 (even tho they are in close proximity, my words not Don's, to inspired activity in the context). Please note:

(1) Amos 7:12, "12 Also Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there EAT bread, AND PROPHESY there:"

(2) Rom 12: 6-8, " 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether PROPHECY, let us PROPHESY according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that GIVETH, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness."

Don reflects:

Pertaining to Amos 7: 12, even though "eat bread" and "prophesy" are associated, I have no reason to believe they are of the same type (both inspired) because I never read of eating bread being an inspired act. All that is being said is, live and prophecy in the land of Judah, the eating and prophesying also do not even have necessary reference to the same time, circumstances, and conditions.

As to Romans 12: 6-8, I do believe all the specific acts that are separated by "or" (eite) do share the same commonality of being "inspired." I say this based on the language, "Having then gifts...." (Rom. 12: 6, see vs. 3). I understand the miraculous to have been present, put another way.

William said:

I am not contending for "reducing" prophesying to ordinary and uninspired teaching ONLY...I am saying let ALL prophesying and ALL praying be INCLUDED. Do you exclude Thayer's "d" definition of the word used for "prophesying" in I Cor. 11, "...to teach..." (pg. 553)? Why EXCLUDE definitions when you can allow ALL praying and ALL prophesying to be included in Paul's instruction?

Don comments:

William, I do not include natural praying and any exceptional use of "prophesying" (false prophesying) into the text of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 because the text is special and unusual. To inject the usual into the unusual is not allowed and presents contradictions and disharmony. The opposite would also be true, to force the unusual into a normal circumstance. What these prophetesses were doing at Corinth was not usual for women in general. Since their actions were unusual, unusual stipulations were forthcoming. These prophetesses (praying and prophesying women) were to be covered.

William reasoned:

Titus 1:12 is an example of a prophet (here's a use of the word, not a pseudo/false prophet) that spoke truth, but was uninspired. "12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies."

Don comments:

William and the list, I understand that the one to whom reference was made as being a prophet is simply accommodatively called by Paul. He functioned as a prophet (was thought to have spoken the utterances of the gods) and was known as a prophet among the Cretians. This "different" use of "prophet" does not mean one can so define prophet in all occurrences and make the exceptional the norm. As we have seen:

Propheteia ("prophecy") is used about 19 times in the Greek New Testament and is found 5 times in I Corinthians. Propheteuo ("prophesied," etc.) is used a total of 28 times, 11 times in I Corinthians; and prophetes ("prophet") is found 149 times and 6 times in I Corinthians. There is not any thing present in the combined 22 occurrences of these words in the vocabulary of I Corinthians to suggest any thing but the common and normal meaning of the words. Again, prophets were actuated by the Holy Spirit (I Pet. 1: 11, 2 Pet. 1: 21). They miraculously foretold events to come and delivered God breathed teaching.

William's second question:

Question 2. Don, do you presently believe that prophetesses were prophesying or praying (miraculous ONLY in both cases) in the church assembly at Corinth with God's blessings and were the ONLY women being instructed to be covered (meaning that non-prophetesses did NOT have to cover their heads when praying with either a prophet or a prophetess)?

Don answers:

William, the simple answer is, yes. The prophetesses (the praying or prophesying women) were the women being addressed in I Corinthians 11: 3-16. Paul addressed the assembly in general in I Timothy 2, but he said nothing about a covering for the women. He did not mention a covering for the head, even though he did discuss the proper attire for the assembly (I Tim. 2: 8, 9). He did not discuss the covering, even though he did focus on the fact that woman is not to, "...usurp authority over the man..." (I Tim. 2: 12). If the covering had been meant to have been universally bound on all women in the assembly, I Timothy 2 would have been the place to have expected to have observed such teaching, but there is not even a hint of such. The teaching pertaining to the artificial covering of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 was special: these were special women, doing special and unusual things along with certain special men, praying or prophesying.

I thank William for his fine and exemplary manner and for the good job he is doing. I look forward to his response and question three. I also encourage you to consider William's reply to this post.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

William has replied to my last post and has said that he will submit question three in a following post. While I wait for the question, I thought I would briefly comment on some of Willaim's points. Again, I appreciate the cordiality of Willaim's post. Willaim enthusiastically presses his points, but he leaves off personality attacks.

William wrote:

1. Don and I AGREE that in I Cor. 11: 3 the "every man" that Christ is head of...is really every man...But, Don and I DISAGREE on who the "every man" is in verse 4.

Willaim believes that the "every man" in verse 4 is the same as the "every man" in verse 3 of the context.

Don comments:

As I have said in commenting on the headship announcement resident in I Corinthians 11: 3: The headship is universal, Christ the head of every man and man is the head of woman. The prophets and prophetesses introduced in verse four were no exception. Beginning in verse four, though, Paul specifically applies the just enunciated principle of headship to the prophets and prophetesses in their circumstance. Since the prophets and prophetesses were doing the precise same thing in exactly the same circumstance, special precaution needed to be taken to insure that headship was recognized and visibly shown. Hence, the teaching that the prophetess was to have her head covered and the prophet was to have his head uncovered (vs. 4ff.). The covering signified acquiesce and subjugation in the culture of these people at that time. This is why the prophet was to be uncovered, to avoid any indication that he thought he was in subjugation to the prophetess. Again, these were not ordinary female Christians being discussed at Corinth.

No where in Holy Writ were women in general commanded to be covered. Only in a text pertaining to prophetesses was the head covering mentioned. In all other texts pertaining to women in general, there is no intimation of a head covering being binding (I Tim. 2: 9; I Pet. 3: 3, 4). Notice that I Timothy 2 pertains to the assembly and I Peter 3 is general and that both texts have absolutely no indication of being indigenous or containing any peculiarity as to special circumstances, and both text address the clothing of the woman, but they say nothing about a head covering. William has a serious problem in attempting to bind the head covering on all (saved) women because the scriptures do not do this. The scriptures do bind the head covering on prophetesses in a culture and time in which the covering signified subjugation.

William wrote:

God, through Paul says, "Every man praying or..." and "But every woman that prayeth or..." and yet Don has said these were "special men and women...". This is an assumption that Don submits for us to believe as God's truth. We need proof that this is the case.

Don remarks:

What I have said is that every prophet and prophetess were to observe the special teaching pertaining to the specific application of headship in their circumstance. No where, I again repeat, in the Bible was the covering bound on all women, just in the circumstances of I Corinthians 11 and pertaining to prophetesses.

William contends:

While it is true that what Paul wrote about every man/every woman covering/uncovering their heads at times of praying was also applicable at times of prophesying...it does NOT follow that if "prophesying" is miraculous only, by definition and use here, that "praying" has to be as well!

Don comments:

I have shown that "prophesying" has the normal, common, and, hence, understood meaning of speaking with divine assistance, and is to be so viewed unless there is an exceptional, unusual nuance (cp. Tit. 1: 12). William cannot deny this. Prayer has the normal, common, and understood meaning of man addressing God without any necessary association with the miraculous, though there was inspired prayer (I Cor. 14: 15). In view of the association between "praying" and "prophesying" in 1 Corinthians 11: 4, 5 and considering the immediate and remote contexts, I must conclude that the praying and prophesying under consideration were both miraculous, acts characteristic of prophets and prophetesses. Again, I Corinthians 11: 3-16 is not, I repeat, is not a normal situation. To attempt to force in to be a normal circumstance and bind it on all women is to argue anachronistically.

Willaim asks in augmenting his question two:

Don, let's be clear here: You are contending that inspired women preachers (prophetesses) were preaching/teaching/prophesying in the assembly at the church of God at Corinth and were the only ones being addressed in chapter 11 and verse 5? Could you elaborate on how you get that out of the inspired record of I Cor. 11? Thanks.

Don responds:

All I can say is what I have repeatedly heretofore affirmed: A certain class of men and women were being addressed in the church at Corinth. They were praying and prophesying women and men. No other women are mentioned in the text in which the head covering is bound. William is adding to the text by inserting all women at Corinth when Paul only addressed the praying or prophesying women. In this special circumstance, these women needed to be covered to visibly show their understood acquiesce to their counter-part, the prophet.

William reasons:

I contend they (uninspired men/women) were included the group to whom Paul wrote in verse 1, "Be YE followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." They (uninspired men/women) were included in the group to whom Paul wrote in verse 2, "Now I praise YOU, BRETHREN, that YE remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to YOU." They (uninspired men/women) were included in the group to whom Paul wrote in verse 3, "But I would have YOU know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Don reflects:

William, I concur.

William continues:

And, they (uninspired men/women) were included in the group to whom Paul wrote in verses 4, 5, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every women that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." If not, why not? (See the point?)

Don answers:

"If not, why not?" because Paul makes specific application of the general principle of headship to only prophetesses. Other women show headship in other ways, such as a "meek and quiet spirit" (I Pet. 3: 4; I Tim. 2: 9-12). William calls this "special pleading," but I call it simply observing "to whom it is spoken."

Don's final comments:

I think highly of Willaim, but I believe in the case of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, Willaim makes some basic mistakes that he would not make on another subject or text. I think Willaim, as a rule, pays attention to the one(s) being addressed, the circumstances of the addressed, and the immediate and remote contexts. My friend Willaim is failing to do this in the case of the prophetesses of I Corinthians 11.

I shall eagerly await question three.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

William's question three:

QUESTION 3: Don, in light of your view on the "every man and "every woman" of verses 4, 5 in our text really being limited to only inspired prophets and prophetesses, do you also teach and believe that when Paul taught, "For a MAN indeed ought not to cover HIS (italicized in KJV) head, forasmuch as HE is the image and glory of God: but the WOMAN is the glory of the MAN."

Don answers:

In the beginning of our exchange, I invited William to pick five of the hardest questions he could to asked me about the text of I Corinthians 11: 1-16. Thus far, three of these questions are focusing on who the people were that were addressed in the text. William believes the teaching relative to the covering applies to all saved women then and now, I do not. I have maintained the simple Bible study rule of observing "to whom it was spoken." Before I expand, allow me to directly answer William's good question.

The particular man (aner) of verse seven is the man under consideration, the praying or prophesying man (the prophet). Again, please allow me to stress: there are certain universal truths being enunciated in the text, beginning in verse three. For instance, the matter of headship. It is also a universal truth that man "is the image and glory of God," all men. However, the particular man here being viewed and to whom these universal truths are being applied is the praying or prophesying man and his circumstances. In the circumstances being reviewed, he ought not (opheilo, moral obligation) cover (katakalupto) his head. The reason for the prohibition was in view of his activity and proximity to his female counter-part, the prophetess and, particularly, the meaning of the head covering to the people in that contemporary culture. If the prophet appeared with a head covering, such would emblematically state that he was in subjugation to the woman doing the same (if she were uncovered), the praying or prophesying woman. I suppose that if they both appeared with a head covering, equality in headship would have been the thinking of the Corinthian people.

It is apparent that William is hung up on this matter. William sees all men and all women being discussed in the mentioned circumstance of the text. Therefore, any pointed out contextual or subject limitation creates a problem for William.

William continues regarding I Corinthians 11: 7:

...that the true sense of the verse would be, "For a INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET indeed ought not to cover THE INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET'S (italicized) head forasmuch as THE INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET is the image and glory of God: but the INSPIRED ONLY PROPHETESS is the glory of the INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET"?

Don comments:

It is evident that there are a number of general truths, I reiterate, being stated in the process of dealing with the specific situation of the text (see vs. 8, 9, 11, 12). Again, though, the man and the woman under consideration in the specific set of circumstances, is the man and the woman of the text, the praying or prophesying man or woman. I can understand William's pressure to have all men and women in the exact circumstances of the text. However, Paul did not put all men and all women then or now in the circumstances.

William explained:

I am NOT trying to make fun of Don's position. I am trying to get him to address another verse in the text....

Don replies:

No problem, William. Apply all the pressure you possibly can, test my position, you are doing a good job.

William said:

Thanks again to Don and all the readers, the compliments on this discussion, and especially to Don for being so straightforward in his presentation and kind to me. It is a pleasure to engage him in this study. Thanks Don!

Don comments:

William, the feeling is reciprocal.

William says in closing his post:

I do want to interject (to be expanded later) that I believe Don has given answers to my questions so far (numbers 1 & 2) and told us WHY he believes WHAT he believes and even (in part) HOW he got there. But, after I counter with questions and alternative positions and views, Don repeats (in my estimation) his original argument again instead of showing wherein my counter argument is invalid or weak (in his estimation).

Don's final comments in this responsive post:

Willaim, you are asking the questions and I am attempting to answer them. I do not move around a lot in my dialectic activities. I establish what I believe to be the foundational position and I build on it. In the case of the men and women of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, they were praying or prophesying men or women, prophets and prophetesses. They were doing the same thing, in the same way, and in the same circumstances. Hence, in view of the head covering, it was vastly important that they not violate the principles of headship in their activities (vs. 3). In view of this and the meaning of the head covering to the people of that culture, the praying or prophesying woman was to be covered and the praying or prophesying man was to be uncovered. The whole issue is just this simple. Please listen carefully to what I am about to say: The reason the head covering does not apply to all women today is this:

(1). The head covering did not apply to all saved women of the first century (only the praying or prophesying women).

(2). The head covering does not have the meaning in our society as it did to the people at Corinth.

(3). We do not have praying (miraculous and public) or prophesying (miraculous and public) women today (I Cor. 13: 8-10).

William, may I kindly say that every argument you make is refuted by the foregoing fundamental truths. You and I agree, I am confident, on a lot of the particulars of the text, but you have the wrong subjects when you take Paul's specific teaching about the covering and apply it to all women then and today. This is the essential difference between your view and mine. Thanks again for the good job you continue to do.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

Willaim has now posted in response to my answering his question three. William is not sure as to my answer. I can understand William's difficulty because I have the same difficulty with others on occasion, sometime with myself. I did think, though, that I answered William's good question. Here again is William's question three and following that, part of the answer that I provided:

QUESTION 3: Don, in light of your view on the "every man and "every woman" of verses 4, 5 in our text really being limited to only inspired prophets and prophetesses, do you also teach and believe that when Paul taught, "For a MAN indeed ought not to cover HIS (italicized in KJV) head, forasmuch as HE is the image and glory of God: but the WOMAN is the glory of the MAN."

Don answers:

The particular man (aner) of verse seven is the man under consideration, the praying or prophesying man (the prophet). Again, please allow me to stress: there are certain universal truths being enunciated in the text, beginning in verse three. For instance, the matter of headship. It is also a universal truth that man "is the image and glory of God," all men. However, the particular man here being viewed and to whom these universal truths are being applied is the praying or prophesying man and his circumstances. In the circumstances being reviewed, he ought not (opheilo, moral obligation) cover (katakalupto) his head. The reason for the prohibition was in view of his activity and proximity to his female counter-part, the prophetess and, particularly, the meaning of the head covering to the people in that contemporary culture. If the prophet appeared with a head covering, such would emblematically state that he was in subjugation to the woman doing the same (if she were uncovered), the praying or prophesying woman. I suppose that if they both appeared with a head covering, equality in headship would have been the thinking of the Corinthian people.

William desires clarification:

Don, I think this is a YES (particular to each time those nouns and pronouns are used in verse 7), but I don't want to put forth a comprehensive email (possibly tomorrow or Monday) and miss your intent here on this answer (especially on the prophetess only vice every woman in the last phrase in verse 7 specifically). I am NOT asking if there are any other verses in the Bible that might teach that "the woman is the glory of the man" right now...I am asking about verse 7...if the true meaning (according to your belief) is that THAT verse is teaching "...but the inspired only prophetess is the glory of the inspired only prophet."

Don comments:

William, I answered your question as clearly as I am capable. Yes, "for a man" of I Corinthians 11: 7 (gar men aner) is man in general but in particular, the praying or prophesying man under consideration in the context. The "but the woman" (de he gune) is the woman in general but, in the expression (in view of the context), would be the praying or prophesying woman in particular (as with the man). Both what is said of the man and woman in particular (in the context of I Corinthians 11) is true in general (the image and glory part), but is also true in the circumstances to which Paul is applying these timeless and universal truths. I see no impetus for saying that "...being in the image and glory" and "...the glory of man" are indigenous to the praying or prophesying man or woman. I know some do make this mistake.

Again, though, William and the readers, Paul is taking a universal truths and applying them to the exact circumstances being addressed to further show why the prophet should not be covered and, conversely, the prophetess should wear a head covering.

William is doing what he must do to maintain and defend his position that all "praying and prophesying women" today must be covered. He must try, some how, to show that the teaching of the covering applies today and he is attempting this by arguing that since man is "in the image and glory of God" today and since woman "is the glory of the man" today, the covering teaching must be binding today. I have said that Paul is taking a universal truth (cp. Gen. 1: 26) and specifically applying it to an unusual and exceptional situation, praying or prophesying women (I Cor. 11: 3-16). Paul is addressing this situation especially in light of the meaning of the covering in that culture.

William, I guess my answer is, "yes," with qualification. I wish I could reduce my answer down to simply, "yes" but I must qualify my, "yes." William, I understand what you are doing: You are attempting to position me. I have no problem with this, but I am telling you what my position is. I agree with you in that I know I Corinthians 11: 3-16 is sometimes said to contain no applicable teaching today. This is wrong and tragic. There are many germane truths in the text. However, these germane and cogent truths are being applied to, again, I repeat, an exceptional situation regarding what these men and women were doing and the way in which they were doing it. We must distinguish between the two and not bind the exceptional on women today by using an emblem of subjugation (the "veil") that is meaningless in our society.

As I close this post, please carefully consider, there is no resident teaching in the Bible binding the covering on all women BEFORE I Corinthians 11and no teaching AFTER I Corinthians 11 that binds the covering on all women. In fact, there is not even any teaching IN I Corinthians 11: 3-16 that bound the covering on all women in the church at Corinth.

William, as much as I eagerly look forward to your posts, I know you have a work load. I do appreciate all the time and effort you are sacrificing to have this exchange. I also thank you for your interest in me and others and for trying to teach us what you evidently believe to be a neglected truth today, all women wearing the head covering. William, one more thing, you did mention someone doing some sentence diagramming. It goes without saying that this is your option, however, I think it will be pointless. I have basically agreed with your grammar arguments thus far, but I have not agreed with your applications. I anticipate the same with any diagramming. It will all come back to some universal truths being applied to a specific and exceptional circumstance and an unusual command being issued for this special situation, the covering.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

The exchange between William Henderson and me continues with William submitting question four. Before William submitted question four, he had some lengthy comments and a number of consequential questions. William and I are both laboring with the burden of maintaining as short of posts as we can. Much of William's material leading up to question four is redundant (in my opinion because I have already addressed it). However, I will attempt to go through it and briefly address any matters that seem to merit notice. I continue to thank William for his good attitude and demeanor.

I can truly reciprocally say the same:

William wrote:

In disagreement, we learn a lot about ourselves and those with whom we disagree. I appreciate my brother and friend Don Martin even more now than before this discussion began.

William wrote:

I hope Don will respond by dealing with these things that I think show weaknesses in his position and conclusions in his next post.... QUESTION 2:  Don, do you presently believe that prophetesses were prophesying or praying (miraculous ONLY in both cases) in the church assembly at Corinth with God's blessings and were the ONLY women being instructed to be covered (meaning that non-prophetesses did NOT have to cover their heads when praying with either a prophet or a prophetess)? Don answers YES to question #2. Don says inspired women were preaching in the assembly at Corinth!

Don comments:

I have repeatedly answered William's questions and addressed the circumstance of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. My friend William does not like my answers. It could be that the reason for the repeated questioning is that I am not providing the typical answers, answers that allow formulated rebuttals. I told William at the outset that I frankly believe there is much misunderstanding regarding I Corinthians 11: 3-16, both on the part of those who bind the covering and those who do not. It fact, it would be hard to find a text concerning which there are more divergent beliefs.

It is not extremely uncommon to find a text in which there is resident general teaching but in the particular teaching situation, there is specific teaching. Also, this specific teaching pertains to a matter that special, exceptional, and more indigenous to the contemporary involved time period and conditions. For instance, Jesus taught his disciples, "...ye also ought to wash one another's feet" (Jn. 13: 14). I submit that "foot washing" had a special meaning at that time and in those circumstances. Is there any teaching found in John 13, then, that is applicable to now? There are the timeless lessons of hospitality and humility (Jn. 13: 4-17). However, the specific act of foot washing in our culture and circumstance (America) would not have much meaning.

After a general comparison, the head covering of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 had an endemic and special meaning to the people of Corinth and that culture. Does this mean, then, that none of the teaching of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 is applicable to today? Not at all. We must remember that the point of verses three through sixteen is to apply the truth just enunciated regarding headship to the given set of prevailing circumstances at Corinth: praying or prophesying women and men. It appears that the praying or prophesying women were dishonoring their head, man, and in particular, the praying or prophesying man, by doing the same thing, in the same way. They needed to have a "symbol of authority" on their head to show that they realized and acknowledge their subjugation to their male counter-part, the prophets (vs. 10).

As I have said: "As I close this post, please carefully consider, there is no resident teaching in the Bible binding the covering on all women BEFORE I Corinthians 11and no teaching AFTER I Corinthians 11 that binds the covering on all women. In fact, there is not even any teaching IN I Corinthians 11: 3-16 that bound the covering on all women in the church at Corinth."

William labors under the belief that the coving teaching issued to the praying or prophesying women at Corinth is to be understood for all women of all time. William has sought to reduce "praying" to natural praying and "prophesying" to natural or uninspired teaching. Of course, we do not know when William binds the "covering" (prayer or teaching matters) or what William's idea of the covering is.

William wrote:

Since Don switched meanings of "the woman" in verse 3 FROM every woman, women in general and "every man" in verse 3 FROM every man, men in general TO inspired ONLY prophets/prophetesses prophesying or praying miraculously ONLY in verses 4,5 Don is going to have to SWITCH MEANINGS BACK to the general application before he gets to verse 8 in the text of I Cor. 11.

Don remarks:

I do not have the problem with understanding that I Corinthians 11: 3-16 contains a specific application of headship and that the specific example also contained an endemic matter, the covering and what it meant to those people that William does. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but if I came into an assembly today in which there was a woman having on a covering that met the requirements of the katakalupto (translated "veil" in the American Standard Version, I Cor. 11: 6), I would think there was a Muslim visitor, a practitioner of Islam. I would not view that woman as visibly saying by the covering that she was under headship (vs. 3). Besides, the woman would not be "praying or prophesying," I hope (doing the same thing as the male prophets, hence, creating the situation for misunderstanding as to the matter of headship. I say this because we do not have inspired teaching delivered by men today, I Cor. 13: 8-10).

I do believe that these men and women, the praying or prophesying men and women, were doing the same thing and in the same circumstances and that this is the milieu or backdrop of Paul's teaching. Was "Anna, a prophetess," who in the temple "...spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" not doing what many of her male counter-parts (prophets) were doing? (Lk. 2: 36-38.) I do believe that there is a dire misunderstanding too often in the church as to the reality and work of a special group of women called prophetesses. They used their gift of prophesy (cp. I Cor. 12: 10) to issue inspired teaching and foretelling in public. It is regarding such women at Corinth that Paul issued the special teaching that they have on a head dress (covering) when praying or prophesying. It is apparent that in the context, that the "praying" is also inspired and public. Hence, the reason for the covering.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

In this post, I shall continue to briefly address some matters and then answer William's question four.

William is kindly insistent:

"Prophetesses" were not the only women under consideration in I Cor. 11 (EVERY woman...praying OR prophesying).... since women could PRAY without a spiritual gift and therefore not prophesy (please note the word "or" in the text of I Cor. 11:1-16)....Praying women were not necessarily "prophetesses" or ladies with spiritual gifts....

Don comments:

Why does William persist in wanting to remove "praying" from the syntax and context of I Corinthians 11 and separately consider it? William, Paul is not simply addressing "praying" women. Even if this had been the case, the scenario of I Corinthians 11 would still have involved the men and women under review doing the same thing, this "same thing" I view as public, and both potentially competitive and a violation of headship. I have explained over and over what I deem the significance of "praying or prophesying" to be.

I wrote: "William is absolutely correct in saying that the Holy Spirit separated praying from prophesying. He did this by the use of "or" (he). I do not intend to go into detail about the technical use of "or" (he) as opposed to "and" (kai). I think a simple and uncomplicated answer is that the Spirit is syntactically saying that the prophet or prophetess is praying or he/she is prophesying, not simultaneously praying and (kai) prophesying. Please notice that I did not say that Paul coupled praying and prophesying.  Without getting meticulously and painstakingly particular, Paul is addressing the matter of praying and prophesying involving prophets and prophetesses and how they were to do what they were doing in the circumstances. The point is, nevertheless, both praying and prophesying are under consideration together in the same circumstances as opposed to praying and prophesying being reviewed in different, isolated settings. What Paul says about praying is also applicable to prophesying (I Cor. 11: 6-16).

William continues:

Further, I asked my good brother Don in this study about how his reasoning on I Corinthians 11 would affect us if we applied it to all instances wherein there was someone with a spiritual, miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit present in the assembly so as to LIMIT the instruction given (like he does in I Cor 11) in those (other) passages in such a way as being non-applicable to us today. We would have a BIG problem (if we applied Don's "miraculous/inspired ONLY" and "special men/women and special circumstances" reasoning), we pointed out, with ever using Acts 20:7 AS OUR authority for first day of the week Lord's Supper observance TODAY since Paul, an inspired apostle, was in that "special assembly" at Troas (and we don't have assemblies with inspired folks in them today).

Don comments:

I do not teach that "apostolic examples are binding today." What I teach is "approved apostolic examples." Paul's participation in the meeting on the Lord's Day at Troas was deliberate and planned (Acts 20: 6, 7). The expression, "when the disciples came together to break bread" (sunegmenon emon klasai arton) is indicative of a practice (cp. Acts 2: 42). Based on Acts 2: 42, we learn that the Lord's Supper is to be a regular act involved in the worship. There is no teaching BEFORE Acts 20: 7, AFTER Acts 20: 7, or IN Acts 20: 7 to limit the observance of the Lord's Supper to those who possessed a spiritual, supernatural gift. The fact that Paul was present and partook of the supper does not limit the partaking to only the miraculously endowed or require that such a person be present so that others can partake. William's example has backfired on him. However, the subjects of the covering teaching in I Corinthians 11: 3-16 were "praying  or prophesying." There is also the special cultural meaning that was then attached to the covering.

William said:

Don wrote nothing on Thayer's "d" definition which references I Cor. 11 (the very passage under consideration in our study), nor did he tell us "why" it would be improper to allow ALL praying and ALL prophesying to be included in Paul's instruction. Maybe Don didn't think it was important to address. Don may have overlooked it. There could be a number of reasons, but we bring it up again for the readership and Don to note.

Don responds:

William wrote nothing, as I recall, regarding my extensive quotation from W. E. Vine. The verb propheteuo is used to describe or indicate the work of a prophet, simply put. Thayer says of the prophet (propheteia, noun), "...discourse emanating from divine inspiration...." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 552). Regarding William's above, Thayer says of the verb propheteuo and alludes to I Corinthians 11: 4, 5 as follows: "...to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or in praise of the divine counsels...or, under the like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others...I Cor. 11: 4, 5....." (Ibid.). William, as the young people say, what is your point? It seems to me that you can not use any reputable word definition source because none of them are going to reduce "prophesying" to the common meaning of uninspired teaching as you must do. I noticed that you did not comment on my treatment:

Notice I Corinthians 11: 4, 5: "Every man praying or prophesying...But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth...." (pas Anna proseuchomenos he propheteuon....pasa de gune proseuchomene he propheteuousa....). You will observe that the language is the same, except for accommodating grammatical changes. What the men (prophets) were doing, the women (prophetesses) were
doing (see case of "Anna, a prophetess," Lk. 2: 36-38).

Propheteia ("prophecy") is used about 19 times in the Greek New Testament and is found 5 times in I Corinthians. Propheteuo ("prophesied," etc.) is used a total of 28 times, 11 times in I Corinthians; and prophetes ("prophet") is found 149 times and 6 times in I Corinthians. There is not any thing present in the combined 22 occurrences of these words in the vocabulary of I Corinthians to suggest any thing but the common and normal meaning of the words. Again, prophets were actuated by the Holy Spirit (I Pet. 1: 11, 2 Pet. 1: 21). They miraculously foretold events to come and delivered God breathed teaching.

Please direct you attention briefly to the act of "praying" in connection with "prophesying" (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). I believe the scriptures present the concept and the first century practice not only of miraculous prophesying but also of Spirit led prayer. "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also," Paul wrote (I Cor. 14: 15). This statement was made in the setting of spiritual gifts and miraculous impetus (see I Cor. 14: 1ff.). Notice Matthew Henry's comments on the verse:

"...The apostle here sums up the argument hitherto, and, I. Directs them how they should sing and pray in public (v. 15): What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also. I will sing with the spirit, etc. He does not forbid their praying or singing under a divine afflatus, or when they were inspired for this purpose, or had such a spiritual gift communicated to them; but he would have them perform both so as to be understood by others, that others might join with them....."(Complete Commentary on the Bible, 1706). Since prayer was in some cases Spirit led and in view of prayer being mentioned as something done in connection with prophesying in I Corinthians 11: 4, 5, I believe it is axiomatic that the prayer thus mentioned was also "inspired." (The prophetess was obviously the exception in what she was doing. I say this in view of I Timothy 2: 8, men only, andras, were to publicly pray, and verse 12).

William's question four:   Don, since you state that the nouns and pronouns in verse 7 can have specific application AND general application, why can't you allow the same thing for the definitions of "praying or prophesying" in verses 4, 5?

Don answers:

William, I know that when we affirm and are contending for a point of doctrine that we can be slow to see a counter-point. However, I do not see what you mention in your question four as being the case. The general subject of headship applied to the praying or prophesying men and women at Corinth (vs. 3). There were also a number of particular universal truths and principles under headship that also applied (vs. 7, 8, 9, etc.).

To attempt to assign the natural meaning to "praying or prophesying" is to ignore both the syntax, immediate context, and remote contexts associated with men and women. I have said that the common meaning for "prophesying" is to speak with divine assistance. I have also conceded that the natural meaning of "praying" generally considered is uninspired. However, I have tried to show that in view of the association of "praying" with "prophesying" in I Corinthians 11: 4, 5, the context, and the fact that prayer could also be inspired, that the "praying" under consideration also had miraculous impetus (cp. I Cor. 14: 15).

William, it is plain that we are at an impasse regarding your and my views of the subjects of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 and the special teaching (not found anywhere else) regarding the covering. I can appreciate your frustration in trying to get me to agree that the praying in the setting can be simply natural and that the "prophesying" can be simple uninspired teaching. Nonetheless, based on the foregoing stated reasons, I must view the text as special and the covering as not binding on all women today.

I look forward to William's question number five and then to posing some questions for Willaim to answer (up to five in number). Since we have exhausted the subjects of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, I would like to see William move on to question five.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

William and the list, I bid you a good Lord's Day. You really have not said anything below that we have not repeatedly discussed, but I thought I would go ahead and briefly repeat.

William reiterates:

QUESTION 3: Don, in light of your view on the "every man and "every woman" of verses 4, 5 in our text really being limited to only inspired prophets and prophetesses, do you also teach and believe that when Paul taught, "For a MAN indeed ought not to cover HIS (italicized in KJV) head, forasmuch as HE is the image and glory of God: but the WOMAN is the glory of the MAN", in verse 7, ...that the true sense of the verse would be, "For a INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET indeed ought not to cover THE INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET'S (italicized) head forasmuch as THE INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET is the image and glory of God: but the INSPIRED ONLY PROPHETESS is the glory of the INSPIRED ONLY PROPHET"?

Don had given an answer, I had not (for sure) understood it...I asked for clarification. He seemed to allow BOTH specific AND general application to men/women in the text allowing for uninspired and inspired application . Those studying along can certainly see the implication here, given Don's excluding those who were UNINSPIRED from some of the earlier verses in the text (according to his spiritual gifts view). In verse 7 he will (I think) NOT RESTRICT, but INCLUDE....inspired AND uninspired men/women. Please read on.

Then, I had asked Don, "My question was rather long, but I want to know, specific to each time the words "man", "his", "he", & "woman" are used in verse 7, in particular, of I Cor. 11, if they are ONLY referring to either "an inspired only PROPHET" or "an inspired only PROPHETESS"?

Don had responded to that:

Willaim, I answered your question as clearly as I am capable. Yes, "for a man" of I Corinthians 11: 7 (gar men aner) is man in general but in particular, the praying or prophesying man under consideration in the context. The "but the woman" (de he gune) is the woman in general but, in the expression (in view of the context), would be the praying or prophesying woman in particular (as with the man). Both what is said of the man and woman in particular (in the context I Corinthians 11) is true in general (the image and glory part), but is also true in the circumstances to which Paul is applying these timeless and universal truths. I see no impetus for saying that "...being in the image and glory" and "...the glory of man" are indigenous to the praying or prophesying man or woman. I know some do make this mistake.

William replies:

IF you truly believe that a man (in general, but in particular an inspired prophet) ought NOT to cover his head (verse 7), then you SHOULD BELIEVE that the passage includes instruction to the uninspired men, Don. Please go up and re-read your answer!!! What is required of "every man" at times of "praying or prophesying", the opposite is required of "every woman"! Similarly, in this verse brother Don, IF you truly believe that the woman (in verse 7 is the woman in general, but in particular an inspired woman) then you SHOULD BELIEVE that the passage includes instruction to the uninspired ladies being covered during praying or prophesying). This is critical, in my estimation, to the downfall of your position and to our coming to agreement on the text, as God would desire. Your "qualified yes" betrayeth you!

Don again replies:

William, may I kindly say that I understand your difficulty in not comprehending my answer. I have said that the enunciated principle of headship found in I Corinthians 11: 3 applies in general to all men and women; thus, it also applies to the unusual situation at Corinth, verses four through sixteen. The prophetesses and prophets posed a special question as to how these female prophets could do the same thing as their male counter-parts and not be in insubordination to them. Paul's answer for them was the head covering.

Willaim continues:

Let us look at I Corinthians 11:7 and put "multiple choice" before Don, to allow him to be clear in letting me know his understanding on verse 7 (at the basis of Question 4).

Don, where are you on each of the nouns/pronouns below? (as I am unsure):

1. For a MAN
a. every man (inspired or uninspired)
b. inspired ONLY prophet
c. uninspired ONLY prophet
d. none of the above (IF this, please explain).

Don responds:

Since the praying or prophesying man is under review in the context of verse seven, the answer would be "b." William, we must always allow the context to define, qualify, or modify. The "a man" (aner) of verse seven is the man being discussed. He should not cover his head for the stated reasons. The stated reasons, though, would be applicable to man in general (cp. Gen. 1: 26).

2. .....indeed ought not to cover HIS
a. every man (inspired or uninspired)
b. inspired ONLY prophet
c. uninspired ONLY prophet
d. none of the above (IF this, please explain <g>).

Don answers:

Again, the contextual answer would be the praying or prophesying man. Hence, your "b." would be the answer in this format.

3. head, forasmuch as HE
a. every man (inspired or uninspired)
b. inspired ONLY prophet
c. uninspired ONLY prophet
d. none of the above (IF this, please explain).

Don comments:

Your above answer "b." would again be the answer in view of the milieu.

4. is the image and glory of God: but the WOMAN
a. every woman (inspired or uninspired)
b. inspired ONLY prophetesses
c. uninspired ONLY prophetesses
d. none of the above (IF this, please explain <g>).

Don replies:

What is said about the woman is generally true but in the context, it is applied to the prophetess. Hence, in this format, your "b." would be correct.

5. is the glory of the MAN.
a. every man (inspired or uninspired)
b. inspired ONLY prophet
c. uninspired ONLY prophet
d. none of the above (IF this, please explain <g>).

Don answers:

Again, this is a general truth, but in view of the backdrop, "b." is the answer.

Willaim and the list, when I am using this text, I point out that these general truths are being specifically applied by Paul to a matter at Corinth and that while the matter is unusual and incapable of being duplicated today, these general truths that Paul applied are generally applicable today.

Willaim stated:

This would be GREAT (if your answers were all "A"s), but would hurt your present position, just like the argumentation you provided on Acts 20:7 hurts your position on I Cor. 11.

Don remarks:

William, to answer "a." would be to ignore the context and milieu. I do not believe this whole matter would be so confusing to you if you were not dedicated to binding the covering on all women today. May I gently say that I believe it is you who has the difficulty, not I. Again, Acts 20: 7 is proof that if you and I considered the subjects I Corinthians 11: 3-16 the way we do in Acts 20: 7, we would be in agreement on I Corinthians 11 as well. The mentioned people in Acts 20: 7 were usual (the church at Troas), while the mentioned people in I Corinthians 11 were unusual. We can and must duplicate Acts 20: 7, but we cannot have "praying and prophesying" women today doing what those women were obviously doing. Besides, the veil does not mean to us what it did to those people.

I close this post by again repeating: I believe that if we had "praying or prophesying women" today and if the covering meant the same to us, they would have to be covered. However, the two requisite conditions satisfying the conditional particle "if" are not in place. It is just this simple. Willaim must make the "praying" natural and the "prophesying" only uninspired teaching and then must bind a matter that was emblematic of subjugation to them but not to us (the head covering) on all women today to arrive at his position. I do not question the motives of William, just his conclusions and position, which I decidedly view as untenable.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

William believes the covering is binding today on "every woman praying or prophesying" and "every man praying or prophesying" (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). Since William also believes the gift of prophecy has ceased, William has to go through a process to have every man and woman included today. He believes that "every woman..." means every woman at Corinth and every where else, including "every woman" today. I contend that "every woman" (pasa gune) must be viewed in its syntactical relationship to "praying or prophesying" (proseuchomene he propheteuousa). Hence, "every woman praying or prophesying," not every woman then or now. William has said, quoting others, that "praying or prophesying" is in the predicate posture and not the attributive placement. He has explained that this means that Paul is not seeking to specify or limit the women who were to be covered and that he really had ALL women in mind. I have conceded that the participles "praying or prophesying" are probably in the predicate position, but, if this is the case, "praying or prophesying" still modifies the women under consideration and that William's explanation of "every woman" meaning all women then and now is grammatically incorrect. Besides, just because the definite article is lacking (ex."the every woman praying or prophesying"), does not necessarily mean the participles are in the predicate only placement. My friend William has advanced an argument that is faulty; hence, it is untenable and not supported by the text of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. William further has argued that since uninspired women were present and followed the prayer being led, they also had to be covered. He expostulates that since we have "prayer" led today, all women today must be covered. Again, notwithstanding, this is not what Paul says. I emphasize: Paul said, "every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head...."

William has committed a basic error: He has failed to consider to whom it was spoken and the circumstances in which it was stated. As I have repeatedly said, the covering was not ever bound BEFORE I Corinthians 11: 3-16, not even on prophetesses, is not bound on all women IN the milieu of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, and is never bound AFTER I Corinthians 11. The subjects and circumstances along with the meaning of the covering to those people all comprise an unusual and exceptional situation, not duplicated in any usual circumstances and teaching.

William has now graciously submitted question number five:

QUESTION # 5:  Don, in light of the New Testament instruction against women exercising authority over men, why do you believe that women with miraculous gifts in the first century were doing so (leading the assembly in praying or prophesying covered with God's approval), but others who were praying, men and women, didn't have to obey the instruction? Scripture please.

William continues to do what he should, he is testing my teaching and attempting to find a flaw or inconsistency. I have encouraged William to give it his all and place all that I teach under the microscope of God's word. If there is a flaw in my teaching, William's good, probative questions will reveal it.

William has heretofore questioned me as to what I view the setting of the text to be. I have in essence said that I did not know that I could limit it, but that these special women and men (prophetesses and prophets) were doing the same thing, in the same way, and in the same circumstances. Public praying or prophesying I do believe is necessarily involved; hence, the assembly would be one such place where they were praying or prophesying, I am convinced.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

The whole point of Paul's instruction for the praying or prophesying women to be covered and the praying or prophesying men to be uncovered was obviously based on two considerations: (1). These special men and women were doing the same thing, in the say way, and in the same circumstance (if not, why was headship a question?), and (2) the meaning of the covering to those people in that culture. To imagine that these women were praying or prophesying in a private, isolated circumstance from the praying or prophesying men, would not, I repeat, present the headship problem. However, to have these extraordinary women doing precisely what the inspired men were doing and "along side of them" would raise a question: were these women without headship subjugation (I Cor. 11: 3)?

Again, I submit what the women were doing, the men were doing (the original resident in verses four and five only varies regarding the necessary gender difference). One who prophesied was a prophet or, in the case of the woman, a prophetess. There are a number of prophetesses (women who prophesied) mentioned in the Bible (cp. Miriam; Deborah; Huldah; and Anna, Ex. 15: 20, 21; Jud. 4: 4-10; 2 Kgs. 22: 14-20; Lk. 2: 36-38).

Let us now take the full context of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 and see what we can deduce.

(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.

Again, these special women with the gift of prophecy were the exception relative to the teaching of I Timothy 2: 12. To imagine that these gifted women only prophesied to women or to children is inconsistent with the use and gift of prophecy. When understood in its context, I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 poses no problem.

I cannot over emphasize that for the covering to have been bound, these women and men were in a situation where the "visible sign of authority" was needed to avert even the impression of insubordination on the part of the female prophets (I Cor. 11: 10).

I opened my file on the katakalupto (the covering) tonight and I would like to share with you a statement from Bill Cavender from his booklet, "The Woman and her Covering." "On the very surface of our study it is suggested that what the man was doing, the woman was doing; what the woman was doing, the man was doing. This is the basis of the problem that existed. Had the woman been 'praying or prophesying' under different circumstances, conditions and times, there would have been no problem. But they were both doing the same thing in the same way under the same circumstances. Thus the solution to the problem was that the woman praying or prophesying do so veiled; the man praying or prophesying do so unveiled" (pg. 10). One more quote, Bill aptly states regarding "praying" in the expression "praying or prophesying" thus: "The 'praying or prophesying' in I Corinthians 11: 2-16 was that which was done under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. The subjects doing the 'praying or prophesying' were inspired people....Since the 'praying' of I Corinthians 11: 4, 5 is joined to the 'prophesying' and prophesying is ALWAYS inspired teaching, and since both the 'praying' and 'prophesying' are adjectives (participles) modifying the same man the same woman, there is here strong presumptive evidence that the 'praying' is inspired praying and not ordinary prayers of uninspired people" (Ibid. pg. 5,17).

I think I have answered William's final question as to why I think these special women at Corinth were publicly exercising their gift of prophecy in a circumstance that involved not only males, but prophets doing the same thing. The reason all women were not instructed to be covered then and now is because those uninspired women were not in a situation of being viewed as competing with their male counter-parts. The uninspired woman came under the teaching of I Timothy 2: 12. This is why the special teaching relative to the covering has no applicability to women today. The situation is impossible to duplicate because we have no prophets or prophetesses today (I Cor. 13: 8-10).

QUESTION # 5: Don, in light of the New Testament instruction against women exercising authority over men, why do you believe that women with miraculous gifts in the first century were doing so (leading the assembly in praying or prophesying covered with God's approval), but others who were praying, men and women, didn't have to obey the instruction? Scripture please.

I now invite you to consider William's reply and comments. Again, William has the burden of showing that all women then and now must wear the covering when "praying or prophesying."

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

I appreciate William's prompt responsive posts. William continues to do an excellent job in defending his view that all women must wear a head covering, at Corinth, throughout the churches of the first century, and all women today. William has separated and isolated the adjectival participle "praying" (I Cor. 11: 5) and insists that it includes women simply in the audience when a public prayer is led. William has said very little about "prophesying," which is syntactically joined to "praying" (I Cor. 11: 5). In view of William's position, I can understand this lack of equal emphasis. I have admitted that the "or" (Greek he) in I Corinthians 11: 4, 5 does distinguish between "praying" and "prophesying." I have offered an explanation which I believe to be in harmony with the context: The prophet or prophetesses (prophesying woman) would not each pray and prophesy at the same time; hence, the "or" is used. However, praying AND prophesying were the two characteristic acts performed by these special, Spirit led people. I have taken the full context or milieu combined with "praying" being associated with "prophesying" and I have suggested that the "praying" being mentioned was itself also miraculously produced or prompted by the Spirit. I have said this especially in view of apparent Spirit led prayer being mentioned in the full context (I Cor. 14: 15).

The chief difference between William and me is that I simply take the subjects for what they were: "praying or prophesying" men and women. The "prophesying" definitely makes them prophets and prophetesses. Since we do not have prophetesses today and in view of the special meaning of the covering to those people, the teaching relative to the covering or veil is inapplicable today. William has the burden of taking the prophetess (prophesying woman) out of the context of I Corinthians 11 and require every woman today to be veiled. As I have attempted to kindly point out: William has presented an anachronism, taking the subjects and circumstances that were special and unique and applying them to people and circumstances that are not harmonious and that create an incongruity.

I shall focus on a couple statements William made and then in post three, I shall take more about the prophetess of the Bible (I have three posts because they must be reasonably shorter).

William wrote:

Don is now writing with a little more care in his choice of words, and that is one bit of progress we have made in this discussion.

Don replies:

I have not noticed any difference, but I accept with thanks the compliment. As a discussion progresses, more refinement should be injected.

William considerately wrote:

Even IF, brother Don, "praying or prophesying" were telling the type of woman (as opposed to when), since we still have praying today, and since there is the little word "or" between the two words, we STILL have "praying or prophesying" women today.

Don replies:

William, I have repeatedly addressed this matter. What the prophets were doing, the prophetesses were doing. In view of the at least danger of violating headship (I Cor. 11: 3), Paul enjoined the artificial covering in the case of the prophetess. I again repeat that the fact that they were doing the exact same thing created the special concern for headship. Uninspired women anterior and subsequent to I Corinthians 11 were not and are not in the same predicament and danger, regarding headship.

William has committed a basic error: He has failed to consider to whom it was spoken and the circumstances in which it was stated. As I have repeatedly said, the covering was not ever bound BEFORE I Corinthians 11: 3-16, not even on prophetesses, is not bound on all women IN the milieu of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, and is never bound AFTER I Corinthians 11. The subjects and circumstances along with the meaning of the covering to those people all comprise an unusual and exceptional situation, not duplicated in any usual circumstances and teaching.

William still asserts:

I believe it is really DON who has committed a basic error. He fails to consider that it was a SHAME for "every woman" at Corinth to engage in praying uncovered! Every woman has man as her head, every woman was to be covered "because of the angels", every women is included in the text!

Don concludes this post:

William still refuses to accept and acknowledge that "every woman" is "every woman praying or prophesying" and not "every woman at Corinth" or "every woman today." Regardless of the predicate or attributive argument pertaining to the perceived meaning of "praying or prophesying" as they relate to the noun, man/woman, these women "praying or prophesying" women were the only women being discussed. William's effort to detach "praying" from "prophesying" and have the women only in an audience when a male led a prayer just does not fit.

Also, if William referred to the "foot washing" of John 13: 14, I missed it. I pointed out that the act of foot washing literally viewed was indigenous to the lifestyle of the oriental and has no literal application to the occidental. Culture and practice sometimes act as a major factor in determining present day application.

Don Martin to William Henderson:

William asked:

Do you believe that the inspired men and inspired women who led prayer in "private" had to obey the instruction in I Corinthians 11? Tell us please. I am interested in learning more of your most unusual position. I certainly can't read the answer in God's Book. And I won't presume to know your position without your answering for yourself.

Don responds:

William, I am not sure what you mean by "private." I repeat that anytime and every time these special men and women were "praying or prophesying," the women had to be covered and the men uncovered. William, my friend, you continue to fail to see the basic point: These prophets and prophetesses were doing the same thing and in the same circumstance. This is why the covering was required. The truly private circumstance (a woman "praying or prophesying" alone) is not being considered in the text. Besides, why would a Spirit led woman be prophesying alone. As we have seen, the point of prophesying was to edify the church (I Cor. 14: 12, etc.). Even if the "praying" were uninspired, the context is still public, placing these women and men in a situation of doing the same thing and obviously at the same time.

William continued:

Don hasn't even begun to "prove" that "obviously" the women were doing what the men were doing! Dear readers and Don, don't leap to conclusions that are not in harmony with the rest of the inspired record (i.e. teaching regarding women NOT exercising authority/dominion over men).

Don comments:

William, I continue to gently tell you that you are ignoring the subjects of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, the full context, and the meaning of the covering to those people. As a result, you are binding the covering on women never the recipients of such teaching and also binding a matter, the covering, that has absolutely no pertinence to our culture.

William further states:

Don ALSO asserts that "headship" was a "question" at Corinth. There is also NO SCRIPTURE to prove this brother Don.

Don answers:

Paul just enunciated the principle of headship in verse three. He immediately injects the matter of the "every man...every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered.... (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). He then proceeds to show that the natural covering (the hair) and, by way of extension and in view of the meaning of the covering to those people, the artificial covering are visible indicators of headship subservience. This is why the "every woman praying or prophesying" had to be covered and the "every man praying or prophesying" had to be uncovered.

In the totality of my posts, I have stated that headship was either already a serious problem in the circumstances of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 or it was, for sure, potentially a problem. Anytime certain men and women were doing precisely the same thing, "praying or prophesying," headship would be a delicate matter.

William wrote, first quoting me:

Don wrote:
Let us now take the full context of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 and see what we can deduce.

(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.

William here:
This is Don's attempt to use scriptural argument, in addition to his uninspired champion "Cavender". I DO appreciate, so much, Don's attempt to reason from Scripture...it is truly refreshing after reading so much from Cavender. Don's reasoning takes another faulty turn above. Please note the following (that parallels Don's wrong argumentation above) ....

1. Women and men (uninspired, in this example) in New Testament times were to sing and edify each other with spiritual songs.
2. Women and men (uninspired) existed in the local churches of Christ.
3. Therefore, women (uninspired) were used publicly to LEAD THE SINGING in the edification of the church in song!

Don comments:

I have said a number of times that in the matter of binding the covering on all women, my worthy opponent William often compares apples to oranges and then draws unwarranted conclusions. Prophesy was a miraculous gift of the Spirit, number six to be exact (I Cor. 12: 10). Prophesy was used publicly to teach both men and women. This is what the prophets did and this is also what the prophetesses did (see post three). William takes the act of singing (uninspired singing) that can be simply an act done in the audience (Eph. 5: 19) and reasons that since singing is do be done by all members, women may led singing in a mixed audience. William utterly fails to distinguish between leading and singing while another leads. Hence, his syllogism that argues for uninspired women being able to lead singing in an assembly involving men being a parallel to my argument is faulty. I think William's above mistake is indicative of his reasoning in this whole exchange and how he comes to the conclusion that all women must be veiled. It appears that William does not realize the difference between leading and following (cp. I Cor. 14: 16).

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

I want to again thank William for the good job he is doing and for the fine way in which he is doing it. You will notice that William and I are not attacking each other. However, we both are attempting to show where we think the other is wrong. Motive assignment and sinister plots have been missing from this exchange. I feel good about it, even though I have not yet convinced William that he is wrong in binding the covering on all women then and now. I believe that William's essential problem of not understanding who the prophetess was and what she did is too common among many brethren. Therefore, I shall dedicate post three to the prophetess.

William wrote, first quoting me:

Don wrote:
There are a number of prophetesses (women who prophesied) mentioned in the Bible (cp. Miriam; Deborah; Huldah; and Anna, Ex. 15: 20, 21; Jud. 4: 4-10; 2 Kgs. 22: 14-20; Lk. 2: 36-38).

William here:
The ladies could prophesy YES; but, did they necessarily do so in violation to the applicable laws (in whatever law age they were living in) concerning NOT exercising dominion/authority over men? No way!....Women and men today are to be involved in edification: in and out of the local church. But, women today are NOT to LEAD the teaching or LEAD the praying in the assembly of the church exercising authority/dominion over men! If Don can see this, he OUGHT to be able to see wherein ladies who were prophetesses could be involved in church edification WITHOUT doing what he boldly, without proof, asserts they did at Corinth, namely exercise authority/dominion over men anywhere at anytime!

Don comments:

I have a great deal of patience with William because I think he is in many ways an outstanding person. I also think some of his confusion is a result of too often lacking teaching in the church today relative to prophetesses. Please allow me to repeat: There are a number of prophetesses (women who prophesied) mentioned in the Bible (cp. Miriam; Deborah; Huldah; and Anna, Ex. 15: 20, 21; Jud. 4: 4-10; 2 Kgs. 22: 14-20; Lk. 2: 36-38).

Let me be simple and brief and just take the case of Anna.

"36: And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37: And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38: And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (Lk. 2).

Please observe three things:

(1). Anna was a "prophetess" (vs. 36).
(2). She departed not from the temple (vs. 37, probably also resided there).
(3). Anna "spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (vs. 38).

At this point, I intended to insert a number of learned statements regarding Anna speaking "to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." However, I decided against it. The text is plain to all who approach it with an open mind. "Don, do you really believe Anna publicly prophesied and taught in the temple to both men and women?" I sure do. Why would I not? This is what we read in Luke 2: 36-38. There is no way one can limit "all" (pasin). Anna taught and prophesied (she was a prophetess) to all, men and women alike. It is untenable to think of "all" as women only or women and children only. Anna spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Anna was a prophetess and she prophesied in the temple, publicly and to mixed audiences. This was her job as a prophetess.

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. As I bring this post to a close and anticipate submitting the first of my questions, I again emphasize that William is ignoring the special subjects of the covering teaching, rejecting the full context, and binding a meaningless thing (the covering) on all women in our culture. All I am doing, conversely, is paying attention to the special subjects, prophets and prophetesses, taking into account the full context, and acknowledging that the veil is without meaning to Americans. Again, these prophetesses were the exception of I Timothy 2: 12.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

I want all reading this exchange to understand that while William and I are stressing our points and attempting to expose the believed error of the other, we do not have personal grudges or venues. We are only interested in the truth and not personally "wining an argument."

William has suggested that after my posts, I submit my question one. To inject different material into our exchange, I shall ask the following of William and I shall ask William to be as concise as possible in his answer. Also, I am not presently sure as to how many questions I may ask, I may ask fewer than my allotted five:

My question number one:

In what circumstance were the praying or prophesying women at Corinth to have their head covered:

A. When they were publicly (before or in the presence of others) praying or prophesying?
B. When they were in private (totally alone, no one else present)?
C. When they were in the presence of a man?
D. When they were in the presence of a woman (no man present)?
E. When they had a role in teaching a man?
F. During a Bible class at home (their families, including their husband)?
G. During a Bible class at home with no man, not even their husband, present?
H. During a Bible class in the church building (men present)?
I. During the preaching in the assembly (mixed audience and male preacher)?
J. During the preaching in the assembly with no man present?
K. During public prayer offered by another in the assembly (male leading the prayer)?

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list (post one of three):

In our exchange on I Corinthians 11: 1-16, William has submitted five questions for me to answer and I have addressed them. In this process, there have been many other related questions, points made, and efforts to refute each other's position. The position held by William is that the covering of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 is binding on all women today. I have maintained that the covering was only binding on "every woman praying or prophesying" and that the covering was indigenous to those people, having no meaning today in America. Before William answered my question number one, William did have some additional comments on the prophetess Anna. I shall briefly reply and then concentrate on William's answer to my first question.

Again, I appreciate the fine spirit that William manifests and the interest a number of you on this Internet list have in the subject of the covering.

William wrote:

Finally, Don continues to assume and assert that ladies like Anna who were inspired prophetesses exercised dominion over men, which is not taught in scripture! Don assumes something (again) that is not unavoidably taught from the text. We pointed out that IF Anna taught EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY INDIVIDUAL in Jerusalem that sought redemption, that he still did not have a passage that taught she did so, as he asserts, publicly in such a way as to include the sense of exercising dominion over mixed audiences, or over men.

Don comments:

It is imperative that William deny the public role of the prophetesses mentioned in the Bible, women such as Miriam; Deborah; Huldah; and Anna (Ex. 15: 20, 21; Jud. 4: 4-10; 2 Kgs. 22: 14-20; Lk. 2: 36-38). It is evident that William cannot even imagine that these prophetesses or women who prophesied (such as those in I Corinthians 11: 3-16) taught audiences that included men. These women were the exception (see I Tim. 2: 12). As we have shown, the gift of prophesy was given to be used. I have contended thus:

(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.

In the case of Anna the prophetess I quoted the following text:

"36: And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37: And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38: And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (Lk. 2).

Please observe three things:

(1). Anna was a "prophetess" (vs. 36).
(2). She departed not from the temple (vs. 37, probably also resided there).
(3). Anna "spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (vs. 38).

William's objection has been:

The ladies could prophesy YES; but, did they necessarily do so in violation to the applicable laws (in whatever law age they were living in) concerning NOT exercising dominion/authority over men? No way!....

William is correct that men have been the religious leaders throughout the Bible. William is also right when he points out that women today are not to assume the role of public teacher in a religious setting involving men (I Tim. 2: 12). However, my friend William errs relative to the prophetess of the Bible, she was the exception. I accept this without any difficulty because I think I understand the gift of prophesy and its utility (I Cor. 12: 10). Because the prophetesses at Corinth were doing the same thing as the prophets, the prophetesses in order to avoid headship issues and violations were to be veiled, this was especially true in view of the meaning of the covering to those people at that time (I Cor. 11: 3-16). William just cannot accept the obvious meaning of Luke 2: 36-38 regarding Anna teaching in the temple (public place) and the fact that she "spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (Lk. 2: 38).

Hear William:

Let me give an example of how Anna could teach "all" who sought redemption in Jerusalem (in the temple) and not exercise authority over men. A woman today can be in the church's building, between or after "services" and be in the foyer at the back of the building, for example, be teaching men (but not exercising dominion over them) and be involved in "edifying the church" without ever having to exercise dominion over men and without ever having to "publicly address a mixed assembly of men and women" in the church. Anna, could teach in the temple area and be an inspired prophetess, teaching men, without ever exercising dominion over men in a public setting (tho the setting per se was public).

Don comments:

The above statement is not characteristic of my intelligent friend William but of a man who has gone too far and has embraced an extreme position. One extreme leads to another. The simple fact of the matter is:

"36: And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37: And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38: And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (Lk. 2).

I accept the fact of the prophetesses and what she did, William cannot. Again, this select group of women were special and not ordinary. They had the gift of prophesy and they publicly used it. In the case of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, these prophetesses were doing precisely the same thing that the prophets were doing and in the same exact circumstance. This was the reason for the binding of the covering on these prophetesses.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list (post two of three):

If binding on all women today, the covering matter is important and necessary to salvation. I have submitted my question one to William and William replied as following:

Now to Don's Question #1:
Question one:

In what circumstance were the praying or prophesying women at Corinth to have their head covered:

A. When they were publicly (before or in the presence of others) praying or prophesying?
B. When they were in private (totally alone, no one else present)?
C. When they were in the presence of a man?
D. When they were in the presence of a woman (no man present)?
E. When they had a role in teaching a man?
F. During a Bible class at home (their families, including their husband)?
G. During a Bible class at home with no man, not even their husband, present?
H. During a Bible class in the church building (men present)?
I. During the preaching in the assembly (mixed audience and male preacher)?
J. During the preaching in the assembly with no man present?
K. During public prayer offered by another in the assembly (male leading the prayer)?

William here:
The Bible teaches, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." (I Cor. 11: 4-6).

Brother Don asks a multiple choice question (which is NOT all-inclusive of all situations, which is fine) concerning whether or not I believe the Bible teaches that a woman AT CORINTH (in the wording of his Question One) should cover her head at various times. Let me give the short answer in this para and then address his A-K individually afterwards. Don has been good to try to answer, in full, most of the questions I asked him. I want to do the same in the spirit of good Bible study. The Bibles teaches, whether in public or in private, whether in the company of another human being or not, whenever and wherever a woman is engaged in praying or prophesying she would need to be covered.

Don comments:

William comes forth in his usual straightforward style and answers my question. It is evident from the way William addresses the question that William is honest and is engaging thus far in this exchange in sincerity. Please consider again his answer:

"The Bibles teaches, whether in public or in private, whether in the company of another human being or not, whenever and wherever a woman is engaged in praying or prophesying she would need to be covered."

William's answer resembles an answer to a similar question that I provided. Notice both the similarity and the dissimilarity. I wrote:

" I repeat that anytime and every time these special men and women were 'praying or prophesying,' the women had to be covered and the men uncovered."

However, I did not stop with the simple above answer, but I went on to provide the full answer that I believe the context and milieu of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 require.

I wrote:

"William, my friend, you continue to fail to see the basic point: These prophets and prophetesses were doing the same thing and in the same circumstance. This is why the covering was required. The truly private circumstance (a woman 'praying or prophesying' alone) is not being considered in the text. Besides, why would a Spirit led woman be prophesying alone? As we have seen, the point of prophesying was to edify the church (I Cor. 14: 12, etc.). Even if the '"praying' were uninspired, the context is still public, placing these women and men in a situation of doing the same thing and obviously at the same time."

I stress this aspect because this is one of the basic areas in which I believe William errs, William does not grasp the setting of the "every woman..." and "every man praying or prophesying" (I Cor. 11: 4, 5).

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list (post three of three):

Notice William's mistakes:

(1). First, William applies the covering to all women then and now.

(2). To make such a universal application and demand, William has to detach "praying" from the commonly understood miraculous act of prophesying and render "praying" totally natural, in spite of its association with "prophesying" and the fact of inspired prayer (I Cor. 14: 15). William then has to have "praying" understood as a male leading public prayer and a woman in the audience simply following, when applied to the assembly. The "prophesying" has to be reduced, in order to be immediately applicable today, to uninspired teaching.

(3). William must totally ignore the apparent situation of the prophets and prophetesses (women who prophesied) at Corinth doing precisely the same thing. Since the gift of prophesy was meant to be publicly used, there was a real danger of insubordination of headship, the headship announced in verse three. Again, the activity of the text was not that which was done in total privacy, but activity in which these special women could possibly violate their subjugation to their male counter-parts.

I have no doubt that William is binding the veil on women today while they are in a circumstance that provides no threat or challenge at all to headship.

Notice William's response to my probing "D" to my question number one: D. When they were in the presence of a woman (no man present)?

William here:
Yes, since they would be engaging in "praying or prophesying" and that is "when" God said for the woman to cover in I Cor.11: 1-16.

Don further comments:

Keep in mind that the whole reason for the covering on these prophetesses was the recognition of headship in what they were doing, "praying or prophesying" (I Cor. 11: 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15). This recognition was to be shown in view of the proximity of the prophets, the understood action of the text requires such an understanding. Yet, William is even binding the covering on all women just in the presence of women, no males present. Hence, a group of women meeting together in the total absence of any male must have on a head covering, according to William. William is now binding more that he has before. Earlier I wrote:

"As I have repeatedly said, the covering was not ever bound BEFORE I Corinthians 11: 3-16, not even on prophetesses, is not bound on all women IN the milieu of I Corinthians 11: 3-16, and is never bound AFTER I Corinthians 11. The subjects and circumstances along with the meaning of the covering to those people all comprise an unusual and exceptional situation, not duplicated in any usual circumstances and teaching."

Notice William's reply to the "G" part of my question: G. During a Bible class at home with no man, not even their husband, present?

William here:
Yes, whenever they would engage in "praying or prophesying" cause that is "when" God said for the woman to cover in I Cor.11: 1-16.

Don comments:

William binds the covering on the woman teaching a Bible class in her house with no man present. Therefore, according to William, a mother would have to put on a veil in order and preparatory to teaching her children. However, this is not all William affirmed as to WHEN all women today must have on the covering.

Hear William regarding "B" of my question: B. When they were in private (totally alone, no one else present)?

William here:
Yes, since they would be engaging in "praying or prophesying" and that is "when" God said for the woman to cover in I Cor.11: 1-16. I can see a man who believes the covering is binding on all women today maintaining its placement when men are present. However, to demand the covering in the mist of only women, children, and then in total privacy, I think clearly demonstrates a total lack of understanding of I Corinthians 11: 3-16.

From my question one, we learned that William 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 in the privacy of their own closets.

If Willaim'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 covering 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 William'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 William, 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:

My question two:

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 again thank William and you for your interest in these matters. I believe William to be wrong in his teaching about the covering, but I also view William to be sincere and convicted in this matter. I do not want to "make fun" of William but I do intend to try to get him to see the truth and stop binding on all women what God never universally bound.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

I commend William and those of you who are following this exchange for your interest. William and my essential difference regarding the covering of I Corinthians 11: 3-16 is that Williaim 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 William'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 William replies:

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

William 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 opportunity 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 William 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 William'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 William'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 William, 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 William having all women covered any time they "pray" and anytime they "teach":

William 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 William's understanding, a woman in total privacy while praying to God would need to be covered. William 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 William'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 William's understanding of the covering of I Corinthians 11. William is very intelligent and capable, however, he has terribly misunderstood Paul's teaching for the special "praying or prophesying" women at Corinth.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

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 William, it is imperative that we know exactly what was the covering. William 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 William 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, William 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 William quotes W. E. Vine pertaining to what was the covering (katakalupto) of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. William 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?

William 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). William, 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.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

Regarding the required covering for these "praying or prophesying" women, William 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...?" William 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 William would know a little more about what the covering is. William says that "Since God did not LIMIT or SPECIFY the article (i.e. size...." Willaim, the text does specify the "size," it must cover the head and hang down.

The position William 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 William 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, William, 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, William 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, William 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 William 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.

William 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:

William, 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). William 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.

William, 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 William's next responsive post. Thank you for your time and desire to learn the word of God. I again thank William 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 William who will stand up for their beliefs!

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

William 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 William. William is obviously convicted in his belief that the covering is binding on all women today when "praying or prophesying." However, William 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. William does not understand what the role of the prophetess was in Bible times. William has manifested a lack of discipline when it comes to word study and application. The latter I say in view of William's treatment of covering (katakalupto) in I Corinthians 11. William exhibits the ability to establish the occurrence of a given word in the Greek text, but William 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 William's timely responsive posts, I do want to again have my question two before us, the question that prompted William'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 William, it is imperative that we know exactly what was the covering.

William began his posts with a listing of what he views as fifteen assumptions on my part. Many of William'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. On these women and these women only, was the covering bound. Alas, my friend and worthy opponent William does not pay attention to the context. Paul is not addressing every woman in the church at Corinth, only these prophetesses (women who prophesied). William 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 William'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 William's required times, simply wear the covering on her head at all times. William wrote:

William 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.

Don comments:

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 William's binding circumstances. William'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.

William continues:

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.

William 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?

Don reflects:

Again, it appears that William 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. William's position is not only extreme, but it involves the female Christian in a ridiculous situation. Again, I say if William's understanding is correct, then the female should simply have her head covered at all times when in public and when in private.

Regarding the covering, William 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.

Don comments:

William 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, William 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 William'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 William has done regarding "covering." William 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. William, as I recall, never touched this argument and fact. William 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 understood.

Here are some highlights of what I submitted relative to the covering of I Corinthians 11, facts that William 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?

William 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).

...William, 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.

William 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."

Don explains:

What William 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, William 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, William 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 Don's view.

Don reflects:

William 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 William accuses me of rejecting the teaching of I Corinthians 11: 3-16.

William reasons:

William 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.

Don answers:

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 William 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 William 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, William 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, William jumps to the natural covering, the hair (peribolaion).

William contended:

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 comments:

Again, William 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 William 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. William does not like this point.

William reasons:

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 plus kalupto is only found in the NT in I Cor. 11^th 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!

Don responds:

It was the Holy Spirit who combined the preposition, kata, and the verb kalupto, not I. As we have seen William'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. William 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 William who is insisting on conformity to what is taught regarding the particularities of the covering. I say this since William binds the covering and I believe I Corinthians 11: 3-16 was special and indigenous to the age of miracles (prophesy).

William rejects Paul's teaching, the teaching he is saying that I refuse:

William 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).

Don replies:

William 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. William, the attached preposition kata means down.

William 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 teaches.

Don remarks:

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 William'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 William 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! William 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, William and I have had a totally different understanding, 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 William. My third question is a probing one to determine William's view of the seriousness of the covering matter and how brethren should view the covering issue:

My question three:

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 William and you for your interest and time.

Don Martin to William Henderson and the list:

I believe William and I have had a good exchange on the covering issue. I say this especially as the end draws near. William wrote:

I would like to review some of brother Don's comments and then proceed to answer his Question # 3 of me.

Don comments:

William reiterates what we have covered (no pun intended) many times before addressing my question three. An example would be:

Don continues to improperly limit "every man" and "every woman" of the text to prophets/prophetesses ONLY. Don's position fails to realize that men and women who pray, but do not prophesy, are instructed in this text, as well. The view I hold INCLUDES the prophets/prophetesses since Paul's/God's teaching is for "every woman" and "every man". The view I hold INCLUDES uninspired men and women who pray; but not so with Don's "special men/special women" theory. This is a crucial flaw in Don's assumptive view.

Don remarks:

William continues to make a big deal out of "or" (Greek he) in I Corinthians 11: 4, 5. What I see in the syntax is simply these prophets and prophetesses would pray or prophesy, they would not each simultaneously pray and prophesy. However, since praying or prophesying is what they would do, they would pray AND prophesy in a given instance. William, though, has to separate these acts and totally remove them from one another. Hence, William keeps talking about praying men and women today. Notwithstanding, these men and women at Corinth concerning whom Paul addressed the covering (katakalupto, that which covered and hanged down the head), were not ordinary male and female Christians, they were prophets and prophetesses. I have pointed out many times that since "praying" is used in association with "prophesying," these men and woman were in all probability also engaging in inspired prayer as well (cp. I Cor. 14: 15). As expected, William also denies this in an effort to bind the covering on all women today. William has to distance the "praying" from the "prophesying" and the prophets and prophetesses who were praying or prophesying (I Cor. 11: 4, 5). Hear William:

"We ALL pray today and the instruction is applicable to all men and women who pray in the New Testament dispensation!"

Regarding the artificial covering of I Corinthians 11, William said 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 consistent with 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 have shared with you that it is William who believes the covering is binding on all women today. Yet, William does not even follow the passage. He ignores the subjects, what they were doing, where they were doing it, and the circumstance that precipitated the covering, headship subjection. William also ignores the basic requirements of the covering (katakalupto), to cover the head and hang down.

Regarding when William believes all women today are to have on their head covering, we noticed the following:

If William's understanding of universal binding nature of the covering were correct, I suppose that it would be wise to issue an authentic 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 William's own teaching about when the woman must wear the artificial covering about which we are studying.

The following is typical of William's reasoning:

Don wrote:
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. William, as I recall, never touched this argument and fact. William 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 understood.

William here:
I pointed out (but Don missed it) that it was the SAME Holy Spirit and the SAME Apostle Paul who wrote the book of I Corinthians WHO WROTE the book of Titus (all New Testament uses Don).from whence I showed him, wherein PAUL (in the Greek and English) wrote concerning a "prophet" (Paul's and the Holy Spirit's choice of using a form of the word propheteuo there, brother Don) who was UNinspired who was a TRUE prophet!

Don comments:

William fails to grasp the thrust of my argument. Just because "prophet" is used in Titus 1: 12 regarding one who was viewed as a prophet, William jumps to the conclusion that the rare "accommodative use" of "prophet" in Titus 1: 12 provides him with the liberty of taking terms that have the ordinary meaning of speaking by the impetus of the Holy Spirit and reduce the teaching to uninspired and only natural teaching. Hence, based on such, I have accused William of word gymnastics.

William has accused me of being inconsistent relative to the statement made by the veil during the first century. The veil, many scholars say the kalumma, veil, is implied by katakalupto, seems to have totally reversed its meaning from the time of Genesis 38: 14, 15 (viewed as attire of harlot) to the time of Paul's writing to the Corinthians, at least in regards to the audience and recipients of I Corinthians. Even during the time of I Corinthians 11, there may have been different cultural interpretations of the veil, but the immediate extant culture inferred in I Corinthians 11 must have viewed the covering as indicative of headship awareness.

Consider the statement found in the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

"...The use of the face veil as a regular article of dress was unknown to the Hebrew women, and if "veil" is to be understood in Song of Solomon 4:1, etc., it was worn as an ornament only. The modern oriental custom of veiling is due to Mohammedan influence and has not been universally adopted by Jewesses in the Orient. In New Testament times, however, among both Greeks and Romans, reputable women wore a veil in public (Plutarch Quaest. Rom. xiv) and to appear without it was an act of bravado (or worse); Tarsus, Paul's home city, was especially noted for strictness in this regard (Dio of Prusa, up-front prior, section symbol 48). Hence, Paul's indignant directions in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, which have their basis in the social proprieties of the time. The bearing of these directions, however, on the compulsory use of the hat by modern women in public worship would appear to be very remote....."

Don comments:

One thing we know for sure, in the milieu and culture of I Corinthians 11, the covering was emblematic of headship subjection (vs. 4-10). Any where there were prophetesses and prophets doing the same thing and in the same circumstances, the veil would have been required for the prophetesses and forbidden for the prophets, providing the associated culture so defined and viewed the covering (cf. vs. 16). As I have said many times:

(1). We do not have prophetesses and prophets today doing what they were doing in I Corinthians 11 (I Cor. 13: 10).

(2). The head covering has no meaning and place in American culture.

Some, it appears, cannot appreciate the truths that are stated and adduced to show the appropriateness of the covering. I say this in the sense that they see the universal nature of these truths and they thus conclude the universal and binding nature of the covering. To substantiate the propriety of the covering in the circumstance of Corinth, Paul mentioned the woman being shorn, the subjugation of angels, even though greater than man, and the fact of the woman's natural covering, her hair (vs. 5, 6; 10; 15). In the case of the prophet being uncovered, Paul also presented numerous universal truths. For instance, the prophet was not to cover his head in the discussed circumstances because he is the image and glory of God, the woman is of the man, and the woman was created for the man (vs. 7; 8; 9). However, just because the arguments and truths used to establish the propriety of the covering are generally true does not necessarily mean that the propriety being discussed, the matter of the covering, is also universally true. As seen, the covering matters pertained to the "praying or prophesying" prophets and prophetesses when the covering meant headship subjugation. It would not have been proper to have bound the covering on prophetesses during the culture and time of Genesis 38: 14, 15 (making the wearer appear as a prostitute).

My final question number three:

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?

This question is asked to probe and establish William's exact application position. There is no doubt that in the text in which the covering is bound on praying or prophesying women, it is a matter of salvation and fellowship. How can one conclude anything else in view of verses 4-16. To violate the head covering meant headship was being rejected, the woman brought shame on herself, elevation above angels, performing uncomely acts, going against principles of nature, and rejecting the teaching of God (vs. 4, 5; 6; 10; 13; 14; 16). Such serious matters would certainly involve salvation and would constitute a fellowship issue. For the prophetess to pray or prophesy uncovered would be the same as to be "shaven" (I Cor. 11: 5). Paul continued, "...For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn..." (vs. 6). Hence, Paul considers the uncovered prophetess a shame and perhaps equates her to the temple prostitute.

Since William has been the one binding the covering, you would expect William to immediately answer my question number three that having the head covering, in the case of all women, is necessary to being saved, enjoy the fellowship of faithful brethren, and that those who do not bind the covering on all women today are indeed false teachers. I know that if I held William's view, I certainly would answer question three in the matter just mentioned. How could I answer it differently and be consistent? Since William has not been linear in his teaching (William has exhibited what I call zig zag reasoning), I expected William not to be consistent in his answer for question three. Let us see how he has answered question three:

First, William states:

William here:
The above question has three parts. Don knows how to ask questions, doesn't he? No problem brother Don.

Don comments:

Question three is a compound question that is designed to extract in a precise way William's application and consequences of binding the covering on all women today.

William reasonably breaks down question three:

Part ONE is concerning whether or not the covering is essential unto salvation. Part TWO is whether or not such is to be made a test of fellowship and Part THREE has to do with the question of the use of the terminology "false teachers" toward those who disagree on this subject with what we understand the truth to be.

William then remarks:

If I didn't know Don better, I would say that he is so weak in his position that he is like the Baptist preacher in debate that has to get on the emotionally charged subject of the person who has a limb fall on them on the way to being baptized and wants to know if the person will be lost eternally in hell!

Don answers:

William, question three is designed to test you to see how much you really believe what you are teaching. Paul bound the covering on prophetesses and he certainly taught that the covering was imperative to salvation, fellowship, and teaching the truth.

Regarding "part one," William wrote:

PART ONE
As brother Robert Turner has been quoted (famously now, probably on another subject matter) to have said, "I won't get into whittling on God's end of the stick." God is the final judge of who is saved and who is lost eternally.
.
William continues:

To honor Don's question to the degree that I believe it has merit I will say this: The covering instruction is a matter of faith, not opinion, for it is a Bible subject that contains instruction for all living in this dispensation (I Corinthians 11:1-16). This instruction is part of the commandments of the Lord (I Corinthians 4:17) that Paul would teach everywhere in every church (I Corinthians 11:16). Paul would have brethren (men and women/anthropos) be taught this and communicate this to others (per 2 Tim. 2: 2). This topic is involving an "action" so it must be that such is either: scriptural or unscriptural. If scriptural: it must be either mandatory or optional. If unscriptural, such is clearly forbidden.... I leave that judgment up to God, brother Don.

Don comments:

Would William say the same thing regarding baptism?

Regarding "part two," William states:

PART TWO
I do not withdraw fellowship from those who do not teach and/or practice the same as I on the head covering issue.

Don comments:

It appears that William does not consider the covering equal to such matters as fornication, and adultery. Yet, Paul obviously did (I Cor. 11: 5, 6).

William continued:

Brethren can dwell together in love and continue to study matters like the covering over which there is honest disagreement in teaching and practice.

Don reflects:

Since Paul definitely did place the covering in the setting of salvation, fellowship, and true teaching, how can William say what he does? Can brethren "dwell together in love..." regarding fornication and adultery? William, you have strongly argued that the covering is necessary and now you want to wiggle out of the necessary consequences.

Regarding "part three," William said:

PART THREE
When someone teaches on a subject, one either teaches the truth or error on that topic. Such is axiomatic. We need to be concerned about what is God's truth on this and other Bible subjects. Do I consider Don Martin, for example, (since we disagree on this particular subject) to be a "false teacher"? I want to answer this question as honestly and yet as lovingly as I can. Please give attention to the full answer herein. I don't call brother Don a false teacher! On this subject, however, I believe with all my heart that Don teaches falsely....

Don comments:

I appreciate William's stands and efforts in a number of areas, however, William and I are diametrically opposed on the covering issue. Since I advocate a practice that would render women tantamount to prostitutes, according to William, how can William write so benignly of me? If I taught the non-essentiality of baptism, would William say the same thing of me? (Mk. 16: 16.)

William asks me a fair question:

Don, do you call me a "false teacher" given our discussion on this topic?

Don answers:

Let me see if I can answer this in 21 words or less: William, if you teach that all women today must be covered to be saved, then, yes, you are a false teacher.

Regarding any prophetess at Corinth who refused to wear the covering, she would have been rebellious and could not have expected to have been saved and fellowshipped (I Cor. 11: 4-16).

You are binding where you have no right and are "fallen from grace" (cp. Gal. 5: 1-4). Willaim, I think a lot of you but I must tell you the truth (Gal. 4: 16).

William, as I bring my part in this discussion to a close, if you are going to use I Corinthians 11: 3-16 to bind the covering on all women today, you must also accept all the attendant teaching along with the consequences of rejecting it. I have found it a pleasure to engage in this exchange with you, but, William, you have not been consistent. I want to now mention another related matter that I deem of great importance.

All with whom I have had contact who believe and teach that the covering is binding on all women today when it comes down to practical application, back off and argue for fellowship in diversity. I submit that the covering issue today is one source of the fostering and spread of the crippling unity in diversity doctrine that is sweeping through churches of Christ. If one can bind the covering today without any consequent salvation, fellowship, and teacher status consequences, why not make allowances for other subjects and differences?

William, I do not bind the covering on all women because the covering is not bound BEFORE I Corinthians 11, it is not bound on all women IN the text, and the covering is never bound AFTER I Corinthians 11 (see I Tim. 2: 9). The covering is only bound in the special circumstances of prophets and prophetesses who were doing the same thing and obviously in the same circumstances (I Cor. 11: 3-16). In this case and among people who viewed the covering as emblematic of headship subjection, Paul bound the covering on prophetesses and restricted it in the case of prophets. To bind the covering on all women today is to present an anachronism (the elements are out-of-date...). I do not doubt the zeal of William and his sincerity. I do hope that William will consider his many inconsistencies and re-study I Corinthians 11. William, we need men such as you to stand for truth, but we do not need matters being bound on all women that were not even bound on all the women at Corinth, just the prophetesses or "praying or prophesying" women.

Wiliam, I again thank you for the cordial and fair way you have conducted yourself in this exchange. I imagine that you are frustrated and perhaps a little angry with me at this time. However, it is my prayer that you will calmly review your positions all the way to the climax as seen in your answers to question three and seriously reconsider binding the covering today. Any way that I can be of future assistance, please call on me. I also want to again thank each of you who followed this exchange.