Woman's Covering, Veil or Long Hair?   
1 Corinthians 11:1-16
Article cU

Introduction
The first part of this article considers some issues, which although of significant importance, are not nearly as bestirring and significant as various issues that are focused on later.  Some quite striking aspects are researched and exposed further on in this article, and which caused the writer many tears as what Paul likely really meant in this Scripture seemed to emerge and show itself and yet was so different than what he had earlier thought.       cU-1
     In considering Paul's teaching about women being covered as in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 various vital issues need to be considered.  According to verses 1-2 Paul very much could have been speaking to the Corinthians about things he had already spoken to them about, and since we don't know what he had already told them, nor have knowledge of the exact situation that Paul here was addressing, we really have only a part of the whole picture or teaching.  According to history Paul in giving this teaching very well could have been writing in a society where heathen customs of extensively and oppressively veiling women's heads in public were practiced by some or many.  Tertullian who lived around 150 years after Paul's time tells of some heathen women being so veiled that they could only see with one eye, while ancient inscriptions on old coins and alters and various histories quite clearly reveal that similar veiling of heathen women existed even before Paul's time.  Paul also could have been writing in a situation where some Christian women with hair cut shorter than men's were being active in special praying and prophesying before the whole congregation, which he felt was quite unsightly and inappropriate for women acting before the whole Church, and while also setting a bad example.  Note some histories show ancient Greek women of the Apostolic age with quite short hair.  Note, various issues very much indicate that Paul in this Scripture, in speaking of praying and prophesying, was speaking of a public church activity (paragraph aU 3:19).     cU-2
Although Paul's teaching about men and women's heads being covered and uncovered, as in 1 Cor 11:1-16, easily could be understood to pertain to a garment covering of some kind, yet in old Bible times the condition of man or woman's hair had various special significances, and speaking of being covered and uncovered very much could also pertain to a particular condition of the hair.  The Nazarites let their hair grow long and then shaved it in their special religious ceremonies.  Even Apostle Paul shaved or shorn his head because he had a vow (Acts 18:18).  In times of a death and distress the ancient Israelites would traditionally shave their heads, and it appears this was counted as a particular uncovering of the head.  The High Priest was not to shave or uncover his head to show lamentation even if a very close relative died, although other Priest's could do so if a very close relative died (Lev 21:1-11).       cU-2.5
Hair length also was a significant issue in old times.  Ezekiel 44:20 giving rules for the Priests, speaks of this and reads, "Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads."  Paul likewise teaches against men having long hair (1 Cor 11:14).  It is noteworthy that Revelations 9:7-8 describing some strange locusts says they had faces like men and had hair like the hair of women, and likely meaning they had fuller and longer hair than men, which again shows the difference in hair style that was common between men and women in old times.  The Nazarites hair was so important that after being removed it was included as part of the burnt offering (Num 6:18).       cU-3

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 Examined
Paul in this Scripture emphatically taught that woman should be appropriately covered, while yet emphatically teaching that man oppositely should be appropriately uncovered.  He concerning women emphasized how uncomely it is for her to pray unto God uncovered (v5&13), and said if she is not covered as this she should be shaven or shorn, and likely meaning shaved or shorn like a sheep at shearing and thus should have all her hair removed (v6).  Yet he concerning men said, "a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head". (v7&4).  Paul was very firm about the particular covering and uncovering he was talking about and appears to have fully expected the Corinthians to understand what he meant.  The object of this article is to determine what type of a covering Paul actually was talking about.       cU-4
Paul in this Scripture together with strongly advocating that women need to be particularly covered and advocating that men dare not be particularly covered, also advocated that long hair is a glory and a special covering to women (v15), and advocated that long hair yet is a shame to men (v14).  Is hair thus the particular covering element Paul is speaking of in this Scripture, or is he speaking of some manmade head covering besides?  Paul not only in this Scripture said, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (v4) but also emphasized that long hair is a shame to man.  These issues clearly connect the issue of an appropriate hair covering with at least a part of the covering Paul was speaking about.       cU-5
     Paul at the beginning of this teaching focused on the proper chain of authority from woman to God and taught that man is the head and authority of the woman, within this chain of authority (v3).  Toward the center of this teaching Paul then emphasized that woman is the glory of man (v7), and lastly he taught that woman's long hair is a glory and a covering to her (v15).  These are three significant issues that dare not go unnoticed, and seem to link to one another.  In examining this Scripture it should be noticed how Paul in verse 7 indicates that women's head should be appropriately covered because she is the glory of man.  Paul in verse seven after emphatically teaching that man should not be covered, then abruptly said "but woman is the glory of man", as if this was a vital reason she should be covered.  Thus what type of covering might Paul have been speaking of which would appropriately correspond to woman being the glory of man and being in proper obedience to him?  Was Paul speaking of a manmade veil to hide and destroy woman's natural and comely covering of hair while praying or prophesying, or speaking of woman having long hair as her covering (rather than having short hair)?  The answer to this question will become more and more clear as further issues are considered.       cU-6
Since Paul in 1 Cor 11:1-16 repeatedly taught that woman should be covered and very correspondingly therewith taught man should be uncovered, their is significant reason to think that Paul was speaking of the very covering which woman needs being the covering which man should not have.  It then very much should be noticed how Paul in verses 13-14 immediately after teaching that woman should be particularly covered, then turned about and advocated that it is yet a shame to a man to have long hair (and to be covered with such).  He said, "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered.  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"  Note how Paul here immediately after speaking of a woman needing to be particularly covered, then seemingly speaking of the same covering said it is a shame to man to have long hair.  Note, if the covering that woman here needs is the covering that man should not have, and the covering that man should not have is long hair, then the covering that woman needs obviously is long hair.       cU-7
Paul after stating that it is a shame for man to have long hair then continues on and likely makes the most revealing statement in the entire Scripture saying, "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for [ANTI] a covering".  If Paul here only meant to say that a woman's long hair is give to her for the purpose of a covering or veil, that alone is a very revealing statement, yet their appears to be much more than that in this verse as one studies the Greek word ANTI therein.  The Greek word ANTI as Paul used here is a very vital word, and the writer was totally shocked in extensively researching it.  Concerning the word ANTI, it in the Greek Scriptures most often pertains to replacement and exchange, and in truth most often is translated into the terms instead of and room of, or into the word for in the sense of direct exchange (as this being given for that).  ANTI then also lesser times is translated into the word "because" yet mostly in the sense of one action being done in exchange for another action.  Note it is very interesting how our English word "for" denotes exchanging items, as exchanging this thing for that thing, while our English word "because" in like manner denotes the exchange of actions, such as I did this because you did that.  In Greek the word ANTI pertains to exchange with regards to both items and actions, and clearly is a word mostly meaning replacement and exchange.  Statistics of the word ANTI are given in paragraph cU 21 below.  The writer was also shocked to learn the Greek word ANTI also very much relates to our English word anti as in antigovernment and that it very much also means opposition like our English word anti!  Note, numerous Greek and English words are similar in spelling, sound, and meaning, and simply are related words.  Thus according to the most common usage and real meaning of the Greek word ANTI this Scripture would read,  "for her hair is give to her in exchange for (or instead of) and in opposition to a veil".  Thus it is quite possible that Paul here (after having requested woman to have long hair), was therewith reproving the ancient secluding heathen veil, and saying woman's properly arrayed and longer hair is given to her as a natural covering instead of and in opposition to heathen veiling.  Tertullian speaks of heathen women being so greatly veiled that they could only see with one eye, while according to history some or much of this type of veiling was already practiced when Paul wrote this epistle.  Paul had much reason to reprove such traditions!       cU-8
Paul then in the next verse (16) continues on and says, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.", and possibly meaning that no Christian congregation anywhere was participating in these oppressive heathen veiling customs, and he neither wanted it to be brought into the Christian church at Corinth.  Although this thought might be shocking, this could actually be what Paul meant.  Paul always was against the traditions and commandments of men, which he said turn from the truth (Titus 1:14).  One should notice how Paul in these verses after seemingly saying woman's longer hair is given to her instead of and in opposition to a veil, then continues right on and says we have no such tradition neither the churches of God.       cU-9
     Another issue to consider is that Paul in verses 1-14 in emphasizing being properly covered and uncovered, used a quite broad Greek word for covering and which simply means to be enclosed or covered with, and which in itself does not at all describe the type of covering.  Yet he then in finalizing his teaching and adding "her hair is given to her for (ANTI) a covering" used another Greek word for covering which pertains more to a garment or veil than the Greek word he used earlier.  Paul here at the end in speaking of a covering used the Greek word "peribolaion" (Strong's number 4018) which derives from two Greek words whose combined meaning means to throw around, and which word according to Strong's Lexicon means "a covering thrown around, a wrapper, mantel, veil".  Thus Paul in finalizing his teaching used a word for covering which largely means wrapper, mantel, veil, and taught woman's long hair is given to her for or instead of such.  Yet Paul did not use that word or any word indicating a veil covering as he earlier spoke of covering, and emphatically taught that man and women's heads need to be properly covered and uncovered.  
     cU-10
Another issue of significant importance to consider is that just because Paul in strongly emphasizing being appropriately covered and uncovered particularly related this to praying and prophesying does not need to mean that he was speaking of a temporary or removable covering, intended only for praying and prophesying.  Rather Paul very properly could have pointed to praying and prophesying in this Scripture as he did, because these activities likely were special activities before both God and the Christian congregation and where Christians' appearance was very noticed, and especially needed to be appropriate.  Christians are to always portray and represent God, in whose image man is made, and so much the more in special praying and prophesying.  Paul in this Scripture spoke of man being both the image and glory of God saying, "man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God", quite likely meaning man the image and glory of God the Father, should not have long hair like a woman, as such is a shame to him.  Paul obviously did not want men or women misrepresenting God or His plan for them while praying and prophesying.       cU-11
It further should be noticed how Paul in verses 9 and 10 said, "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.  For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels".  Why should this Scripture be thought to mean that woman should have her natural comely covering of hair masked with a secluding veil, and in the name of having power on her head, as some advocate?  Note, the word power in this verse comes from the Greek word "exousia" which although most often being translated as power and authority, yet very much means "power of choice, liberty, and freedom, etc" (Enhanced Strongs Lexicon), and is repeatedly translated with that meaning in other Scriptures (John 1:12, Acts 5:4, Romans 9:21, 1 Cor 7:4, 1 Cor 8:9, 9:4-6&12&18, 2 Thes 3:9, Heb 13:10, Rev 22:14).  1 Corinthians 8:9 which contains the word "exousia" reads, "But take heed lest by any means this liberty [exousia] of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak"  1 Cor 9:4-6 using this word reads, "Have we not power [exousia, liberty freedom] to eat and to drink?  Have we not power [exousia, liberty freedom] to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles... Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power [exousia, liberty freedom] to forbear working?".  Thus with regards to the original Greek, verse 10 very much could be translated as,  "For this cause ought woman to have freedom and liberty on her head because of the Angels [example]."  Thus it is very possible that Paul in verse 9-10 largely was saying that woman who was made to benefit man (rather than vise versa) should have freedom and liberty on her head in accordance with the example of the Angels, and this rather than being in bondage to the gloomy, oppressive, and secluding heathen veil.  This would nicely agree with how Paul used the word ANTI in speaking against the veil in verse 15.  Can one imagine the Angels of God going about heaven with their head in an unattractive and secluding veil and largely hooded as might be done in punishment?  Paul said woman was made for man, while it does not appear any normal and honest husband really desires his wife, who is his glory and her hair her glory, to go about with her glory under a bushel, while rather she is to be free as the Angels.  The writer in seeing his little girls with their longer hair hanging sometimes tends to think they are like beautiful little Angels.  Yet in the veiling tradition this alikeness with the Angels is largely destroyed.  It is also interesting that the Greek word "exousia" as in verse 10 comes quite directly from two Greek words which together imply liberty as to be free to exist in public, while heathen women were especially required to be greatly veiled in public.  (Old Strong's Lexicon G1849, G1832).  Jesus said the truth makes us free and God wants His children to truly be free like the Angels!     cU-12

2 Corinthians 3:13-18
The issue of veiling for some reason was a special issue or concern at the city of Corinth and with the Christians there, as Paul again writing to them in 2 Cor 3:13-18 again spoke to them about veiling and in a very negative manner.  Paul said,  "And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all [men and women], with open face [Greek unveiled face] beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image [unveiled and in His image, freedom on our heads like the Angels] from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."  Please note this last verse.  This entire Scripture should be read carefully.  One should notice how Paul herein clearly spoke of the veil being abolished and being done away in Christ.  Note how Paul herein seems to be speaking of all both men and women rightly worshiping before God with an open and unveiled face, and uses the fact of how Jesus took away the veil to prove his point!  An alter inscription from prior to the time of Paul shows both men and women being veiled in their heathen sacrificing and worship, while Paul appears to have been advocating that Christ took away the veil and that all, (both men and women) through Him can come before God unveiled and with an open face in their worship.       cU-13
     Both Jesus and Paul often warned about the commandments of men, and advocated freedom in Christ and the truth.  May Christians understand that truth.  The writer in writing this article shed many tears as it dawned on him what Paul likely really meant in 1 Cor 11:1-16, as compared to how oppositely it has been interpreted and applied by many Christians over the years!  It is amazing how Paul's teaching which often is used to advocate the veil, could very well mean the very opposite.  The writer himself in times past used this Scripture to advocate wearing the veil, and wrote as such, and now feels very foolish for doing so.       cU-14

Ancient Jewish Women's Covering
The fact that Paul spoke of the veil being taken away as in 2 Cor 3:13-18 yet does not necessarily mean or prove that Jewish women were usually veiled in old times.  Note, even if Jewish women were not religiously veiled in the past, Paul still in an attempt to show the gentile Corinthians at Corinth how heathen veiling customs are not needed or appropriate in the Christian era, very much could have pointed to the issue of how Jesus took away the veil (veil in the temple, and removed past symbols and barriers, making it possible for man to approach God in a new open way) to emphasis this point.  It appears Jewish women may not even have been veiled in special worship, and particularly not in worship that involved praise and thanksgiving.  In old Israelitish times covering and shaving the head normally was done to symbolize special distress, repentance, and affliction.  It appears both Jewish men and women particularly covered their heads in such times (2 Sam 13:19, 15:30, Jer 14:3-4, 2:37).       cU-15
Isaiah 3:24 indicates Jewish women normally had well set hair.  This Scripture speaks of the well set hair of the Jewish women being taken away (as well as many other beautiful things) in the punishment that was to come.  Various other Scriptures which indicate Jewish women did not normally hide or cover their hair in any way are, Song 4:1, 6:5, 7:5, Ezek 16:7, 16:12.  Many other Scriptures also reveal that Jewish women did not extensively veil their heads as did some or many women in heathen religions.  Note, chapter two of article aU gives many Scriptures and issues which show that ancient Jewish women in their times of blessing and prosperity were dressed very attractively rather than being extensively veiled.  Although God gave the Jews various instructions about clothing, yet the Old Testament records no requirement for women to veil their hair or heads.       cU-15.5
     It should also be considered that veils do not need to necessarily mask and cover but can also be used to decorate and enhance.  Isaiah 3:18-23 speaks of special decorative veils together with all types of jewelry and decorative attire for women.  Song 5:7-8 also appears to be speaking of a decorative veil.  The veil that Rebecca put upon herself when meeting Isaac, very much could also have been a decorative veil (Gen 24:65).  As a decorative veil, this veil would have been in accord with the much jewelry Abraham's servant had given Rebecca shortly before this time, rather than conflicting with that earlier act and emphasis (Gen 24:16-30).  Note, it does not appear that Rebecca, who was unveiled before meeting Isaac, and in the presence of all others, upon meeting Isaac would have then suddenly put on a masking veil in order to hide her natural comely covering of hair or whole head from her husband to be, and to then obscure her beauty which before was visible to all others!  If veiling was a masking tradition for Jewish women why didn't Rebecca wear the veil before she met Isaac?  Also note, if wives today must veil themselves because of Rebecca's example, why don't they then wear a decorative veil (rather than a masking veil) as Rebecca's veil likely was.  Further if Rebecca's veiling example must be followed, what about her example of jewelry?  Although some likely believe Rebecca put this veil upon herself as a sign of Isaac's power or authority on her head, it appears such belief comes from 1 Cor 11:10 which speaks about woman having power on their heads because of the Angels, which verse and verses around it yet rather appear to be advocating freedom and liberty on the head as the Angels and disapproving the heathen veil, rather than advocating any veil at all.     cU-16
Although God very much allowed and expected that His people would come before Him covered with sackcloth, and with sorrow and tears, in their times of difficulty and repentance, yet God also at other times very much expected His people to come before Him with joy, praise and thanksgiving.  Chapters 12 and 16 of Deuteronomy, repeatedly advocate how the Israelites were to usually come before God at His Holy Tabernacle with rejoicing, while Malachi 2:13 tells how God even refused to accept their worship and offering because they were not bringing it to Him with joy and thanksgiving, but rather with tears and heaviness.       cU-16.1
     Now how would God have desired His people to be attired in their religious celebrations of joy and thanksgiving?  Would He have intended that they come before Him attired as though they were ashamed and sorrowful and with special endeavors to mask glory and beauty?  In considering these questions one should consider that the Israelites in their religious celebrations were commanded to be physically washed and clean, which is quite different than wearing sackcloth and ashes, and intentionally dismantling glory.  The Bible also speaks of the Priest's garments of Holy service being made for glory and beauty (Ex 28:2&40).  God even commanded those who had physical blemishes to refrain from the special work of a Priest, and leave that work for the more perfect bodied (Lev 21:17-21).  One should here remember how the Priests, who performed a special service before God, were not to have long hair, and likely because such was a shame rather than a glory to them.  God wanted that which pertained to glory rather than shame employed in this worship.  It very much should also be noted that even though the Priests were not to have long hair, the High Priest was to wear a special mitre on his head, and which mitre obviously was considered a glory to the High Priest.  These issues all strongly indicate that the Israelites in their joyous religious celebrations, would not have portrayed shame as in masking woman's long hair which Paul said was a glory and a covering to woman, and a shame to remove.       The Bible also speaks of the Kings of Israel wearing special crowns on their heads (2 Sam 1:10, 12:30, 2 Ki 11:12).  Concerning these crowns it is likely that they were worn by the Jewish Kings in their service of judgment and worship, and counted a glory to the Kings, as the High Priest's mitre was counted a glory to him.  When the Queen of Sheba saw the magnificence of Solomon's kingdom, and including the special apparel and appearance of those within it, their remained no spirit in her (1 Ki 10:4-5, 2 Chr 9:3-4)  Note, how the above issues indicate that masking veils for the purpose of destroying glory, would not have been appropriate for either Jewish men or women as they praised and worshipped God in their routine religious celebrations.     cU-16.3
Now all the above does not mean that Christians in the Christian era must come before God with the perfection and glory as in old times.  Note, concerning the Christian era Jesus put an end to many old era traditions, and the Bible particularly speaks of God calling the halt the lame the blind, and the poor of this world rich in faith (Luke 14:21-24, James 2:5).  Yet even though God does not demand physical perfection and glory as in old times, yet it is clear that our appearance still has some significance as we praise and thank our great God, and it does not appear we should intentionally destroy glory and beauty (as in veiling) as we joyfully come before Him.  One should here remember how Paul spoke of both men and women coming before God and His glory with unveiled face, and with Jesus as a replacement of veils.  A question of some significance is; why is Paul's teaching against men being inappropriately covered, so much understood to be speaking about and against headwear (rather than against long hair), when the Priest's and Kings wore glorious headwear in their service to God, and yet the Priests in agreement with Paul's emphatic teaching against long hair refrained from long hair?     cU-16.5

The Origin of the Masking Feminine Veil
With regards to where the heathen tradition of extensively veiling (masking) might have come from, it should be considered that heathen religions often tried to appease God by self affliction and an ascetic way of life.  Note, the erring Jews also did this and foolishly burned their children in fires to try to appease their false gods.  Man then often becomes proud of his ascetic lifestyle and it actually turns into a false and oppressive religion.  The heathen Greek and Roman religions in trying to appease God by self affliction fell prey to a very erroneous tradition against marriage, woman, and sex, which tradition very much seems to relate to their erroneous traditions about veiling.  Tertullian and other earlier histories tell how heathen wives even left their husbands to become celibate, and tell of how heathen priests and priestesses refrained from marriage and sex as they followed their ascetic heathen traditions.  It is quite clear that these sad traditions found their way into Christianity, as heathen Rome supposedly became Christian.  Yet Paul speaking of the emphasis which wrongly disallowed marriage and sex called it the doctrine of devils (1 Tim 4:1-3)!       cU-17
Tertullian, like numerous others who are considered Early Church Fathers, appears to have been very wrongly influenced by this anti marriage and sex emphasis of the heathen.  It appears Tertullian, like various ones who are considered Early Church Fathers, considered sex in marriage only permissible for honest reproductive endeavors (ECF Vol 3 Page 533-534, Vol 4 Page 66).  Yet if Paul had believed sex in marriage was only allowable for reproductive purposes he rather than saying "It is better to marry than to burn" would have said "it is better to stay away from the marriage environment than to burn (1 Cor 7:9)!"  Tertullian spoke of sex in marriage as the common disgrace that marriage involves, and although he gave special honor to those who never married, it appears he yet gave more honor to those who refrained from sex in marriage, saying it is more difficult to abstain from what has already been enjoyed than to refrain from something that never was experienced (ECF, Vol 4 Page 66).  Just how Tertullian and other Fathers like him reconciled their disallowance of sex in marriage, with Paul's teaching "that it is better to marry than to burn" the writer can't grasp!  Justin Martyr went as far as to write, "And our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, for no other reason than that He might destroy the begetting by lawless desire" (ECF, Vol 1, Page 590).  It appears this anti marriage and sex emphasis very much went along with their veiling of woman emphasis and wherein women's faces largely needed to be veiled.  Tertullian writing to women wrote, "And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? ... You are the devil's gateway: ... And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?".  He also advocated that if God had intended women to wear beautifully colored clothes he would have provided the colored sheep to provide the wool!  (ECF Vol 4, Page 25&45).  Considering how far off course these early writers were with regards to marriage and sex, how can we trust their teachings about the veil?  Considering how erroneous these writers were so soon after the time of Apostle Paul, how can we trust their teachings about the veil, simply on the basis that they were written so soon after the time of Paul?  Paul's real message as in 1 Cor 11:1-16 may never have been understood and excepted by much of the manmade religious society.  Paul even before his death spoke of all Asia having turned against him (2 Tim 1:15).     cU-18
Too often those who fall prey to and keep the ascetic laws of men, rather then being humble before God start to feel self satisfied and erroneously feel worthy of reward before God, while they neither can rightly perceive the goodness and liberality of God.  Such ones often lack true thankfulness and love to God, and might come before God at the judgment saying have we not done this and done that, but will hear those dreadful words depart from me I never knew you (Matt 7:22-23, 25).  Satan's ugly trick!  Satan is ugly in many ways, and often also makes people ugly both in character and appearance.  Although it is important and actually beneficial to keep God's good laws, and which are made for man rather than man made for them (Luke 2:27), yet may we be delivered from the doctrines of men and devils!      cU-19

The Word ANTI Further Examined
Although the word "ANTI" as used in the Greek Scriptures normally and by far most often pertains to exchange, reaction, and replacement, it yet appears in rare situations a sideline meaning of this word pertains to alikeness and correspondence with.  Although this aspect is also true about the word ANTI, it still very much appears if Paul had really meant to advocate that women in special worship must wear a veil in correspondence with their long hair, he would not have used the word ANTI in the manner in which he did (1 Cor 11:15).  The following paragraph gives some vital statistics on the word "ANTI".      cU-20
Since the Greek word ANTI is used quite rarely in the Greek New Testament, the writer in trying to get a better perception of this word examined how it is used in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint, and was shocked at what he learned.  Note the Septuagint is believed to be the very Scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles used, and thus it is quite possible that Paul was accustomed to the word ANTI having the meaning as portrayed in the Septuagint.  In the Septuagint, the word ANTI appears 170 times.  Out of these 170 times about 1/2 of the time it is translated in to the word "for" as in direct exchange (this for that), and about 1/3 of the time it is translated as "instead of or in the room of", while much lesser times it is also translated as "because" and then mostly in the sense of one action being exchanged for another action.  The Greek word ANT which is closely related to the word ANTI appears around 100 times in the Septuagint and actually is almost always translated as "instead of"!   The word ANTH which also is related to the word ANTI appears around 100 times in the Septuagint and is basically always translated as "because" (action exchange).  Note, this is comparing the Septuagint with the KJV.  Now concerning the word ANTI as used in the  Greek New Testament, it most often is translated into the word for as in direct exchange or replacement, once it is translated "in the room of", and several times translated as "because".  According to my study in the Greek New Testament, most often when ANTI is used as a prefix in a word, the resulting Greek word pertains to strife, conflict, and argument.  (Strong's Enhanced Lexicon words G473-500).       cU-21
Even if Paul for some reason in using the word ANTI did not intend to use it with it's common meaning of exchange, replacement and opposition, but rather in using it simply meant to say "her hair is given to her because of and for the purpose of a covering", even that interpretation by no means, indicates women would need both long hair and a veil.  Although the statement "her hair is give to her for the purpose of a covering" is quite different than the statement "her hair is given to her instead of a covering", even it would seem to indicate woman's long hair is the necessary covering woman needs rather than indicate she needs both the long hair and a veil.  The only interpretation which would request both long hair and a veil is if Paul in using the word ANTI would have meant to say "her long hair is given to her in addition to and correspondence with a veil, which usage of the word ANTI is almost none, and why would Paul use such a word if he was trying to enforce wearing the veil!       cU-22

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 with Comments
1 "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."      cU-24
2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."  These ordinances very well could have connected to what Paul in this Scripture was talking about and made it easy for the Corinthians to understand this Scripture.       cU-25
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."  An important chain of authority wherein Paul says man is the head or authority of the woman.  Paul also later says woman was made for man rather than vise versa, which also nicely aligns with the aspect of man being the head of the woman.        cU-26
4 "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head."  Note, Paul later in this Scripture emphatically says it is a shame unto a man to have long hair.  Man by being erroneously covered in praying and prophesying dishonors his own head, and appears Christ his head, and all authority above him.     cU-27
5 "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."   If a woman doesn't have her proper God ordained covering, such is just too similar to being shaven and which clearly is a shame to woman, and she by praying uncovered as such dishonors her own head, and her husband, and likely all the chain of authority above her.  It appears husbands have reason to be ashamed of a wife whose hair is not a proper covering and glory to her as Paul spoke of in v15.       cU-28
6 "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." If a woman does not have her God ordained covering let her be shaven or shorn like a sheep at the shearers, and become totally bare headed, and since that obviously is a shame to her, let her have her appropriate and God ordained covering.     cU-29
7 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."  Long hair as Paul later emphatically advocated, is a shame to man, and man as the glory of God ought not to have such hair.  But long hair is a glory to the woman, and she in being the glory of man should have long hair.     cU-30
8 "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man."      cU-31
9 "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."  Woman was made to be man's help mate rather than man being made to be woman's help mate.     cU-32
10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power [exousia] on her head because of the angels."  Since woman (the glory of man) was particularly made for and to bless man, she should have liberty and freedom on her head as in the example of the Angels [rather than being bound to the cumbersome and gloomy heathen veil].       cU-33
11 "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."      cU-34
12 "For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."  Woman also is an important person and not only man!       cU-35
13 "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"  Just use your own common sense, to determine whether it is comely that a woman pray to God as a central figure in church void of her appropriate and God ordained covering, what an example of woman is that?.     cU-36
14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Although it obviously is not comely for a woman to pray uncovered, yet with regards to man long hair does not complement him, but rather shames him.     cU-37
15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for (ANTI) a covering." Although long hair shames man, yet long hair is a glory and a covering to woman, and it is given to her instead of and in opposition to a veil [the heathen veil].       cU-38
16 "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." But if anyone what's to advocate either short hair for women, or the heathen veil, we nor any of the churches of God have that custom and it simply dare not be brought into the Christian Church.      cU-39

Following are eight significant issues to remember concerning this Scripture;      cU-40
Issue One:  Just because Paul particularly emphasized being appropriately covered and uncovered in praying and prophesying does not need to mean he was speaking of some special covering just for then.  Paul very much rather could simply have been trying to portray how very out of place, improper hair styles appear in that special setting.  Just because one in trying to make an impression might ask, "judge in yourself whether it is comely for one to wear an idolatrous ephod in praying and prophesying", would not need to mean that he meant it is acceptable to do so at other times.  Rather he could simply be trying to make a point of how this erroneous thing, even seems so much more improper in that setting.       cU-41
Issue Two:  Paul in saying "woman's hair is given to her ANTI (in exchange for) a covering", used a Greek word for covering that strongly indicates a manmade throw around garment or veil which she did not need, while earlier Paul in advocating that woman's head needs to be appropriately covered, did not use that Greek word but used a word that simply meant to be covered or enclosed and which could have pertained to hair or anything.       cU-42
Issue Three,  The Jewish Priests were neither to have too short or too long of hair, nor was the High priest to shave or uncover his head when a very close relative died.  In old Jewish times shaved heads and long hair had special significances, and hair was quite a vital issue.       cU-43
Issue Four:  Paul in this Scripture not only said it is uncomely for a woman to pray to God uncovered, but also said, long hair is a glory to woman and is given to her for (exchange for) a covering!      cU-44
Issue Five:  Paul in this Scripture not only said "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head", but also emphatically said "if a man have long hair it is a shame to him"!      cU-45
Issue Six:  Paul right after emphasizing that it is obviously uncomely for a woman to pray uncovered, then continued right on and immediately advocated that it yet is shameful for a man to have long hair, which indicates he was speaking of hair all along (v13-14).      cU-46
Issue Seven:  The word "ANTI" in Paul's statement "her hair is given to her ANTI [for] a covering", means exchange, replacement, and opposition, and thus Paul could very well here have been reproving the heathen veil, and thus rather than been teaching that Christian women should be veiled, been teaching the very opposite!      cU-47
Issue Eight:  The word power in verse ten comes from the Greek word "exousia" thus according to this word this verse very much could read, "women should have power, liberty and freedom on their heads because of the Angels [Angel's example].       cU-48

One should notice how Paul in concluding this teaching basically said, "Just use your own common sense, to determine whether it is comely that a woman pray to God uncovered.  Yet even nature teaches you that if man has long hair that isn't appropriate.  But if woman has long hair that is a glory to her for it is given to her in exchange for a veil" (1 Cor 11:13-15). Please read that carefully.  How can one advocate women must be veiled with such an ending to Paul's teaching?  These last verses should be closely examined as Paul in them most likely would have been summarizing and finalizing his whole teaching.       One should also remember how negatively Paul spoke of the veil in 2 Cor 3:13-18, therein emphatically emphasizing that Jesus took away the veil, and therein speaking of all (both men and women) coming before God and beholding His glory with an unveiled face.     cU-49
It is not a small matter that the very Scripture that often is used to advocate that woman should hide and destroy her comely and complimentary covering of hair (as is done in veiling), very much could oppositely be advocating that woman should neither cut it off or veil it, as such distorts that natural covering that God intends for woman to be covered with.  Note, Paul in verse six basically said,  "For if the woman be not covered [appear as God designed], let her also be shorn: but if such be a shame, let her be covered [appear as God designed]", while he therewith could say "if a woman has her comely covering of hair hid under a veil (bushel), let her also be shorn: but if such be a shame, let her neither hide her comely covering of hair under a veil (bushel).  This would very much align with Paul's statement that woman's hair is given to her in exchange for a veil (v15), and teaching about woman having freedom and liberty on her head like the Angels (v10).  Considering that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is the main and largely only Scripture that has been used to advocate the veil, and that because no other Scripture teaches it, and considering that even this very Scripture rather seems to be disapproving the veil, how can one advocate the veil?       cU-50

General Feminine Appearance
Just because their obviously is a possibility of women putting too much effort into trying to adorn their hair and appearance, does not mean God then requires women to intentionally hide or destroy their natural complimentary covering of hair or largely hide their whole heads under a veil!  Their is a tremendously vast difference between a woman putting extreme and excessive efforts into trying to be attractive and then possibly with alluring eyes and expressions trying to allure men to herself she shouldn't, and a woman intentionally hiding and destroying her natural complimentary covering of hair.  Christian women clearly don't have to hide their hair or whole head under a veil to avoid doing the other!  God put special leaves on trees to cover and beautify them and if man would bind the branches of trees together and force their glorious leaves under a tarp, how unattractive God's beautiful trees and forests would be (and even though these tarps might be put on very neatly)!  Yet such is largely what veiling does to women, and who is God's very special gift to man.  Obviously women can put excessive expense into their clothing and appearance, and while therewith lacking inward qualities and being contrary to their husbands, which error both Peter and Paul reproved (2 Tim 2:9-10, 1 Pet 3:4).  Yet feminine appearance does have a vital place in life, and does not need to be veiled and destroyed as various anti marriage and sex extremists taught!       cU-51
     After Apostle Peter encouraged women to not put too much expense and effort into their appearance he continued on and encouraged Christian women to look to ancient Jewish women as examples to follow, even mentioning Sarah as a special example and who like her daughter in law Rebecca was so beautiful that Kings noticed their beauty and desired them for wives (1 Pet 3:3-6, Gen 12:11-15, 20:2-3, 26:6-10).  Abraham's servant gave Rebecca much jewelry as he inquired of her concerning becoming Isaac's wife (Gen 24:16-30).  Considering how attractively Jewish women dressed and appeared in old times, if women in the Christian era, oppositely and suddenly were required to intentionally make themselves unattractive, it would appear Apostle Peter instead of encouraging women to look to ancient Jewish women as he did, rather should have added don't be like Jewish women of old who wore beautiful clothing, jewelry, and other delights (2 Sam 1:24). Note, articles bU and bZ speak much more about feminine appearance.     cU-52
     Although King David lamenting after Saul's death said "Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel" and although his son Solomon said the virtuous wife clothes herself and family in silk, purple, and scarlet, (Pro 31:21-22, 2 Sam 1:24), yet Tertullian advocated that if God intended women to wear beautifully colored clothes he would have provided the colored sheep to provide the wool, and advocated that every woman is an Eve, the devil's gateway and is worthy of nothing but animal skins!  Although the Song of Solomon and various Scriptures, speak very clearly about feminine beauty, although Apostle Paul spoke of a bride without spot or wrinkle and of woman being the glory of man, and although the Apocrypha reads, "The beauty of a woman cheereth the countenance, and a man loveth nothing better"  (Ecc of Sirach 36:22), yet it appears the anti marriage, beauty and sex, emphasis of Tertullian (and many others like him), have had so much impact on our world that many religious men are even ashamed to admit that they do appreciate special feminine beauty, and all their lives might war against it, and try to evade, ignore, and forget it, rather than being blest by it as God intended.  The writer himself was a victim of this anti beauty attitude.  I in getting married although being very glad my wife happened to be beautiful, yet largely felt to do anything to make such happen was vain and evil.  I thus never considered what might have particularly contributed to or subtracted from her beauty, but avoided the issue.  Yet I did put much emphasis into the appearance of particular things I was building.  How erroneous and sad.  Although God commanded that wives should be loved, and very much intends the beauty He has given woman to be appreciated, and to be an wondrous element to help inspire this love, yet the doctrine of Devils portrays such feminine beauty and love, as weak, embarrassing, lustful, and evil, while encouraging real men to rather love material gain and money which love the Bible reproves!  How many have been under the influence?  May God help us!     cU-53
How many marriages have been needlessly troubled, and blessings missed in the last many centuries because of the doctrines of devils which disallowed marriage, beauty, and intimacy therein?       How many poor misled people have, and are subconsciously trying to win heaven by an acetic (self inflicting) life style, rather than realizing that God giveth us all things richly to enjoy (1 Tim 6:17), and understanding why King David so greatly praised his God for His goodness?  How many of such erring one's will end up at heaven's door, saying "Lord have I not done this and have I not done that", rather than thanking God for this and thanking Him for that, and will hear those words depart from me I know you not?       cU-54
Jesus said "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).  Yes, Jesus came to provide and abundant life, and to set captives free, and He said the truth does so.  Yet Satan and his doctrines steal and kill.  Woman is one of God's most special gifts to man, and Apostle Paul said that woman is the glory of man, and spoke of woman's hair being a special glory to her, yet how much of this glory and gift has been stolen from humanity by the thief and his doctrines?      cU-55
Throughout history the greatest opponent of truth has not been the non religious society (non religious people), but rather the greatest opponent of truth has been the false religious society (erring religious people).  One should consider that the false religious society and it's false traditions can very much be classified as the world (which is not to be conformed to), and not only the world having no religion.  Although the false religious world often has erroneous and oppressive laws it yet often has very zealous adherents and defenders.  May we not be conformed to the false religious world, or be found guilty of being a religious opponent of the truth!  Apostle Paul was amazed to find himself as such, but God helped and changed him.  How many today need that change?         cU-56

Conclusion
Obviously this writing will not force anyone to change their minds on the veiling issue, nor does the writer desire the reader to simply and blindly follow this article.  Yet may we all soberly and honestly seek the truth.  Many honest Christians are innocent of the many errors that they might be engulfed in, and God is merciful to them and blesses them even in their various errors.  Yet many so called Christians are not honest or innocent as this, while in reality much of the error and ignorance our world is engulfed in is not because the truth was unavailable, but rather is because too many people instead of earnestly seeking the truth even refuse to accept it when it is revealed, and thus continue on in their own self chosen religious agenda and actually love and make lies.  May we rather love and seek the truth that makes us free, and may God teach us what it is!  The writer in concluding would encourage the reader to read the article "God and Religion, What's it All About?", posted at "TeachMeGod.com" as it reveals many good things about God and true religion.  May the reader forget the writer, except in his prayers, and rather honestly seek the truth and in doing so honestly examine the various issues considered herein.  Note, article cS which concerns woman's hair closely relates to this article.  God bless and farewell.      cU-57

9163            070404